Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge bars Starbucks from closing 77 failing Teavana stores
NY Post ^ | 12/01/2017 | Lisa Fickenscher

Posted on 12/03/2017 8:41:50 AM PST by Maceman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-188 next last
To: Maceman

How can a County Judge shutter 77 stores of the Simon Group, if some of the 77 are not in her county district?
Are some of the Simon Group 77 stores, in other counties?


41 posted on 12/03/2017 9:03:24 AM PST by GOYAKLA (" Winning not Whining"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PrincessB

Starbucks owned the Tazos brand as well. They just sold it to Lipton.


42 posted on 12/03/2017 9:04:51 AM PST by ameribbean expat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GreaterSwiss

That actually makes the most sense... otherwise I don’t know what possible legal reason a judge would have to force a store to stay open.


43 posted on 12/03/2017 9:05:36 AM PST by Roobarb321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

At least half guilty of something.

44 posted on 12/03/2017 9:07:06 AM PST by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Unbelievable. This is what you do when you have power, but no skin in the game.


45 posted on 12/03/2017 9:08:09 AM PST by proust (Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
What legal principle could justify this ruling?

It's the ancient, (dis)honorable principle of "I'm a JUDGE, dammit! I can do anything I bloody well please! Grovel before me, peasant!"

The decline of the American Republic began when we abandoned the practice of tar and feathers.

46 posted on 12/03/2017 9:08:17 AM PST by NorthMountain (... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

http://beta.latimes.com/food/sns-dailymeal-1859967-starbucks-teavana-closing-lawsuit-simon-property-group-12317-20171202-story.html

More here. Starbucks cannot close their stores before their lease runs out.

Might want to look at that contract they signed...


47 posted on 12/03/2017 9:09:09 AM PST by Snickering Hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

I looked Judge Welch up. She’s an elected county judge. Starbucks, I’m sure, has the money and lawyers to appeal this decision.

Getting rid of Federal lifetime appointments requires an amendment to the Constitution. Doubt that’s going to happen.


48 posted on 12/03/2017 9:09:10 AM PST by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

My guess is that this is a contractual dispute and is fake news.


49 posted on 12/03/2017 9:09:47 AM PST by Moonman62 (Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

I’m not so sure this is judicial overreach so much as lease breaking.

I wonder if it’d be enough to satisfy the ruling if Starbucks closed the stores but paid out the remainder of the lease.


50 posted on 12/03/2017 9:11:10 AM PST by Skywise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

Just turn off the lights, lock the doors and just leave it like that. Store is not closed, it just doesn’t open for business.


51 posted on 12/03/2017 9:11:57 AM PST by SkyDancer ( ~ Just Consider Me A Random Fact Generator ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

Well, this is a first (and likely the last) but I have to side with Starbucks on this. How can a judge stop a business from closing?


52 posted on 12/03/2017 9:12:25 AM PST by bgill (CDC site, "We don't know how people are infected with Ebola.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

This is just redistribution/socialism.

Starbucks likes redistribution/socialism, so this should be OK with them.


53 posted on 12/03/2017 9:13:09 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (<img src="http://i.imgur.com/WukZwJP.gif" width=800>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

You might want to take a look at the Federal Law regarding the closing or the substantial reductions in force by businesses. I worked for a company that was being sold to one of it’s major investors which was a foreign entity. Their plan was to move manufacturing out of the US and into idle factories in it’s own country. This meant a wholesale loss of jobs in the US. By reason of the numbers of people who were going to be displaced, Federal Law mandated certain processes and financial consideration to minimize the negative effect on the laid off workers.


54 posted on 12/03/2017 9:13:26 AM PST by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Maceman; LS; governsleastgovernsbest; Kaslin; BenLurkin

Gee. A liberal company gets forced to lose more money by their liberal judges their liberal politicians FORCED on the rest of the taxpayers!


55 posted on 12/03/2017 9:14:09 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

>>Unbelievable! A judge can force a failing business to stay open? WTF?!! America’s judiciary is completely out of control and needs to be reigned in.

It will be interesting to see how “capitalism for me, but socialism for thee” Starbucks will respond to this. Everyone is a villain in this case, so I don’t care how it turns out.


56 posted on 12/03/2017 9:15:02 AM PST by Bryanw92 (Asking a pro athlete for political advice is like asking a cavalry horse for tactical advice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bgill
Well, this is a first (and likely the last) but I have to side with Starbucks on this. How can a judge stop a business from closing?

Might want to look at their lease contract.

Starbucks may be obligated to keep operating their store until their lease runs out.

They could get out of it if they were in bankruptcy, but they're far from it.

57 posted on 12/03/2017 9:15:13 AM PST by Snickering Hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
Simon Property Group malls because the real estate giant was less able to handle the financial pain.

One would think "real estate giant" Simon Property Group would be able to handle anything. They're huge. Back when I went to the mall, it was one of theirs.

58 posted on 12/03/2017 9:15:23 AM PST by bgill (CDC site, "We don't know how people are infected with Ebola.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

i don’t agree with it but Starbucks-oh well karma


59 posted on 12/03/2017 9:15:46 AM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

The penalties for not staying for the term of the lease are in the lease agreement.

It would be interesting to see the agreement, but that won’t happen.


60 posted on 12/03/2017 9:16:50 AM PST by SaxxonWoods (CNN IS ISIS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-188 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson