Parties entered into lease, and mall wasn’t supposed to let more than 4 full-line jewel stores open in mall. After the 4 were there, def. made deal with other store as long as other store said they would be a specialty store, not full-line, when really it was just a front. Issue is whether Lord’s, the other store, is an indispensable party and can be brought into the suit. Valley West was seeking dismissal on a 12(b)(7) because they thought Lord’s was an indispensable party, but the case would have ot be dismissed because no personal jurisdiction over Lord’s. Valley West was scared of conflicting judgments (this one and when Lord’s would sue them after this injunction was given). This court says there was too much speculation of conflicting judgments and that Lord’s wouldn’t be prejudiced because it’s not their interest that’s decided, but really it is. Court said “Tough, Valley West, it’s your own fault.”
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Civil Procedure Cases and are similar to What is the significance of Helzberg’s Diamond v. Valley West Mall?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.