Tekyz, Inc. vs. Gigo Clean Technology Inc.

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,

without any explanation as to why the request was not made long ago.

Notably, the original cross-complaint was filed nearly three years ago, on 9/21/23. The original trial date of 9/29/25 was continued to 4/27/26, pursuant to stipulation based on outstanding discovery and counsel recently substituting into the case. (See Stip. Filed 4/15/25 [ROA 54] and Order filed 4/18/25 [ROA 58].) Thereafter, the 4/27/26 trial date was continued to 1/11/27 pursuant to another stipulation of the parties, again based on outstanding discovery. (See Stip. & Order filed 3/5/26 [ROA 117.) When granting the second trial continuance, the court stated, “No further trial continuance without a strong evidentiary showing of good cause.” (ROA 117, p. 4.)

Here, the proposed amendments are not based on newly discovered facts or evidence and there is no adequate explanation for the delay in bringing this motion. Defendants’ counsel substituted into this case on 12/22/25 (see ROAs 105 & 106) yet the motion was not filed until 5/18/26 (see ROA 123) without any explanation for the delay.

If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)

The motion for leave to amend is therefore DENIED.

Trial remains set for 1/11/27.

Plaintiff to give notice.

9 Wong vs. Makhail Motion for Reconsideration

The court DENIES Plaintiffs DOUGLAS WONG and JENNIFER JING’s motion for reconsideration.

Defective Notice