Oxygen Funding, Inc. vs. Colombia Hemp International, LLC

Cross-border considerations or federal compliance are not relevant to the court’s decision on this matter. As such, Plaintiff’s request for a sixty-day stay to permit completion of an independent United States sanctions and regulatory compliance review is denied.

In sum, the motion is DENIED in its entirety.

Defendant to give notice.

7 Oxygen Funding, Motion for Leave to Amend Inc. vs. Colombia Hemp No tentative. International, LLC

8 Tekyz, Inc. vs. Gigo Motion for Leave to Amend Clean Technology Inc. The court DENIES Defendant/Cross-Complainant GIGO CLEAN TECHNOLOGY INC. and DEFENDANT/PROPOSED CROSS-COMPLAINANT BITA SAFARI’s (collectively, “Moving Parties”) motion for leave to file a First Amended Cross- Complaint.

Moving Parties now seek to add seven new causes of action and add a new cross-complainant (Bita Safari), because current counsel determined at some point that a new pleading was needed after conducting a thorough review of the file.

Denial of leave to amend is appropriate where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party is shown. This may happen where a proposed amendment opens up an entirely new field of inquiry without any satisfactory explanation as to why the major change in point of attack had not been made long before trial. (Estate of Murphy v. Gulf Ins. Co. (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 304, 311.)

Such appears to be the case here. The amendments would likely require substantially new discovery to defend against the proposed new additional causes of action and party,