COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2023
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES.
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES From time to time, the Company is a party to various litigation matters incidental to the conduct of its business. The Company is not presently a party to any legal proceedings that would have a material adverse effect on its business, operating results, financial condition, or cash flows, except as set forth below. In July 2021, we were served with a Complaint in the District Court, County of Denver, Colorado, by plaintiff 2353 SB, LLC (“Plaintiff”). We entered into a lease with Plaintiff for the premises at 2353 South Broadway, Denver, CO with a term of three (3) years to commence on November 1, 2020. Monthly lease payments were to be $12,867. In 2020, we made initial payments (first month’s rent and security deposit) of $39,633; but subsequently did not take possession of the premises and have made no further payments in respect thereof, as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The lease contains a ‘force majeure’ clause which includes a provision that neither party is liable for failure to perform its obligations under the lease which have become practicably impossible because of circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the applicable party, including ‘pandemics or outbreak of communicable disease.’ We have taken the position that our failure to take possession and make any further payments under the lease is directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We are vigorously defending this action and believe that the above-referenced force majeure clause presents a complete defense to Plaintiff’s claims. We filed a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment in the alternative. Plaintiff filed a response and cross-motion for summary judgment thereafter. In October 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff sufficiently pled facts that raise a plausible claim for relief, notwithstanding our possible defenses, but has not specifically made any rulings on either party’s motion for summary judgment. On November 14, 2022, we timely filed a formal answer to the complaint, denying each of Plaintiff’s substantive claims. We also asserted appropriate affirmative defenses, including the force majeure clause of the lease, which provides that we are not liable under the lease in the event of a variety of events outside our control, including “pandemics.” In addition, we have asserted a counterclaim against the Plaintiff for breach of contract to recover the initial payments made under the lease as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The trial is currently scheduled for September 2023.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2023

NOTE 10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

From time to time, the Company is a party to various litigation matters incidental to the conduct of its business. The Company is not presently a party to any legal proceedings that would have a material adverse effect on its business, operating results, financial condition, or cash flows, except as set forth below.

In July 2021, we were served with a Complaint in the District Court, County of Denver, Colorado, by plaintiff 2353 SB, LLC (“Plaintiff”). We entered into a lease with Plaintiff for the premises at 2353 South Broadway, Denver, CO with a term of three (3) years to commence on November 1, 2020. Monthly lease payments were to be $12,867. In 2020, we made initial payments (first month’s rent and security deposit) of $39,633; but subsequently did not take possession of the premises and have made no further payments in respect thereof, as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The lease contains a ‘force majeure’ clause which includes a provision that neither party is liable for failure to perform its obligations under the lease which have become practicably impossible because of circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the applicable party, including ‘pandemics or outbreak of communicable disease.’

We have taken the position that our failure to take possession and make any further payments under the lease is directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We are vigorously defending this action and believe that the above-referenced force majeure clause presents a complete defense to Plaintiff’s claims.

We filed a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment in the alternative. Plaintiff filed a response and cross-motion for summary judgment thereafter. In October 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff sufficiently pled facts that raise a plausible claim for relief, notwithstanding our possible defenses, but has not specifically made any rulings on either party’s motion for summary judgment. On November 14, 2022, we timely filed a formal answer to the complaint, denying each of Plaintiff’s substantive claims. We also asserted appropriate affirmative defenses, including the force majeure clause of the lease, which provides that we are not liable under the lease in the event of a variety of events outside our control, including “pandemics.” In addition, we have asserted a counterclaim against the Plaintiff for breach of contract to recover the initial payments made under the lease as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The trial is currently scheduled for September 2023.