According to the lawsuit, Starbucks is VIOLATING ITS LEASE AGREEMENT.
Not supposed to quote USA Today, so I won’t. But the article below claims Starbucks was sued to prevent it from breaking its contract. And yes, it WOULD be reasonable to rule that someone has to abide by the terms of their lease:
They sued “on the grounds that Starbucks had signed leases for those stores, and closing them before the end of the lease was Starbucks shirking its contractual obligations.
https://www.thedailymeal.com/starbucks-teavana-closing-lawsuit-simon-property-group/12317
Wow, right out of Atlas Shrugged.