Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, the Company is party to certain legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course and are incidental to our business. Future events or circumstances, currently unknown to management, will determine whether the resolution of pending or threatened litigation or claims will ultimately have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of operations in any future reporting periods. The following is a list of current litigation: Pineapple Express v. Ramsey Salem JAMS Arbitration Reference Number: 1220063897 was filed December 4, 2019. This matter arises from claims of breach of contract, more specifically the confidentiality provisions of certain Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization dated February 12, 2016, entered into between the parties and arising from the disclosure of the interim arbitration award in the matter entitled and above-referenced as: Salem, et al. v. Pineapple Express, Inc., et al. JAMS Arbitration Reference Number: 1210035565, filed July 13, 2018, by Respondent. On April 8, 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and mutual general release, under which the Company withdrew the second arbitration. Hawkeye v. Pineapple Express, Inc., et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number: BC708868 was filed June 6, 2018. Plaintiff claimed damages against Defendant in the excess of $900,000 arising from a series of successive amended and revised revenue sharing agreements pertaining to rental income from certain leasehold for premises more commonly known as 65421 San Jacinto Lane, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 which was not realized through no fault of Defendants, nor are Defendants contracting parties to the lease agreement or original revenue sharing agreement for which consideration was paid. Defendants deny all allegations of claims asserted in the Complaint. Notwithstanding, the parties settled the matter pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement in or about January 3, 2020. However, the matter was reduced to an entry of judgment by the court in or about February 21, 2020, for the amount of $615,000, which monies remain due and outstanding and are accrued for in the Company’s settlement payable as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021. The parties are cooperating to resolve this matter pursuant to the terms of the agreed upon settlement. Sharper, Inc. v. Pineapple Express, Inc., et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number: 18SMCV00149 was filed November 1, 2018. Complaint for money with an amount in controversy of $32,500. The matter arises from certain claim for goods and services rendered beyond the contract claim which is wholly disputed. The court case matter was stayed on February 11, 2019, pending the outcome of Arbitration. Finnegan & Diba was substituted out of the matter on June 14, 2019. The matter was arbitrated through other counsel and the arbitrator issued a final award in favor of Petitioner in or about September 4, 2019, for the principal amount of $15,375, which has been accrued for in the Company’s contingent liabilities as of December 31, 2018. The award was transitioned to an entry of judgment in the total amount of $18,692 on or about February 27, 2020, against Pineapple Express, Inc. without specificity as to the judgment debtor’s state of incorporation, and Pineapple Express Consulting Inc., which remains due and outstanding. The accrual in the Company’s contingent liabilities as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021, is $18,692. Cunningham v. Pineapple Express, Inc. Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number: BS171779: Judgment, ordered by the Department of Industrial Relations, Labor Commissioner’s Office was entered by the Court on December 11, 2017. The amount of judgment entered was $47,674. Enforcement on the Judgment is continuing. Finnegan & Diba was retained to defend enforcement proceedings and substituted out of the matter in March 2019. This claim was accrued for in the Company’s contingent liabilities as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021. Pineapple Express, Inc. v. Cunningham Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number: SC 127731 was filed June 21, 2017. This action arose from certain complaint and cross-complaint which were both dismissed. Defendant Cunningham pursued a cost judgment against Plaintiff and obtained a judgment in the amount of $2,367, which remains outstanding to date and since January 22, 2018. This amount has been accrued for in the Company’s contingent liabilities as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021. Enforcement proceedings have ensued and said judgment remains outstanding to date. Finnegan & Diba was not the counsel of record when judgment was entered and only addressed enforcement proceedings until such time it was substituted out as counsel of record in or about June 14, 2019. StoryCorp Consulting, dba Wells Compliance Group v. Pineapple Express, Inc. JAMS Arbitration Reference Number: 1210037058, filed December 18, 2019. This matter arises from dispute over certain services agreement entered into between the parties in or about January 31, 2019. In 2020, the parties agreed on a settlement amount of $15,000. The parties self-represented in arbitration and a final arbitration award was issued in the amount $23,805 on or about October 27, 2020, against the Company. Claimant has since filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against Pineapple Express, Inc. a California Corporation, with the Los Angeles Superior Court bearing Case Number 20STCP04003, set for hearing on April 12, 2021. On information and belief, Pineapple Express Inc., a California Corporation, is not affiliated with Pineapple Inc., a Nevada Corporation, formerly known as Pineapple Express, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation. Claimant amended its complaint on or about February 3, 2021, to include Defendant Pineapple Express, Inc., a Wyoming corporation. A default judgement was entered on May 11, 2021, against Pineapple Express, Inc., in the amount of $29,280. Defendant, Pineapple Inc., a Nevada Corporation, is not a party to the pending matter to date. The parties hope to engage in settlement discussions and resolve this matter. The $29,280 has been accrued for as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021, in the Company’s contingent liabilities. Russ Schamun v. Pineapple Express Consulting, Inc. This is a small claims matter for $7,500 filed by an independent contractor. There was a hearing date on August 23, 2019, and judgment was awarded to Russ Schamun. This creditor will be satisfied once the Company is in a position to satisfy the judgment. The $7,500 has been accrued for as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021, in the Company’s contingent liabilities. SRFF v. Pineapple Express, Inc. This matter resulted in a stipulated judgment whereas former SEC counsel claimed approximately $60,000 in legal work that was not paid for. The Company claimed that the work being charged for (a registration statement to be filed with the SEC) was not completed. Regardless of this fact, the Company signed a payment plan and confession of judgment if the plan was not honored. The result was a judgment entered in favor of SRFF because of the confession. This creditor will be satisfied once the Company is in a position to satisfy the judgment. The settlement amount has been accrued for in the Company’s accounts payable and accrued liabilities balance at September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021. Novinger v. Pineapple Express, Inc. Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number: 20CHLC10510 was filed in or about March 11, 2020. This is a limited jurisdiction action arising from a claim for monies lent to Pineapple Express, Inc. without specificity as to the judgment debtor’s state of incorporation, for the total of $30,851, which is accrued for in the Company’s related party notes payable (Note 7) as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021. On September 23, 2020, a default judgment was entered against the Company. The parties are working to resolve the matter or alternatively vacate and set aside the default judgment entered unbeknownst to the Company.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is party to certain legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course and are incidental to our business. Future events or circumstances, currently unknown to management, will determine whether the resolution of pending or threatened litigation or claims will ultimately have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of operations in any future reporting periods. The following is a list of current litigation:

Pineapple Express v. Ramsey Salem

JAMS Arbitration Reference Number: 1220063897 was filed December 4, 2019. This matter arises from claims of breach of contract, more specifically the confidentiality provisions of certain Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization dated February 12, 2016, entered into between the parties and arising from the disclosure of the interim arbitration award in the matter entitled and above-referenced as: Salem, et al. v. Pineapple Express, Inc., et al. JAMS Arbitration Reference Number: 1210035565, filed July 13, 2018, by Respondent. On April 8, 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and mutual general release, under which the Company withdrew the second arbitration.

Hawkeye v. Pineapple Express, Inc., et al.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number: BC708868 was filed June 6, 2018. Plaintiff claimed damages against Defendant in the excess of $900,000 arising from a series of successive amended and revised revenue sharing agreements pertaining to rental income from certain leasehold for premises more commonly known as 65421 San Jacinto Lane, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 which was not realized through no fault of Defendants, nor are Defendants contracting parties to the lease agreement or original revenue sharing agreement for which consideration was paid. Defendants deny all allegations of claims asserted in the Complaint. Notwithstanding, the parties settled the matter pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement in or about January 3, 2020. However, the matter was reduced to an entry of judgment by the court in or about February 21, 2020, for the amount of $615,000, which monies remain due and outstanding and are accrued for in the Company’s settlement payable as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021. The parties are cooperating to resolve this matter pursuant to the terms of the agreed upon settlement.

Sharper, Inc. v. Pineapple Express, Inc., et al.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number: 18SMCV00149 was filed November 1, 2018. Complaint for money with an amount in controversy of $32,500. The matter arises from certain claim for goods and services rendered beyond the contract claim which is wholly disputed. The court case matter was stayed on February 11, 2019, pending the outcome of Arbitration. Finnegan & Diba was substituted out of the matter on June 14, 2019. The matter was arbitrated through other counsel and the arbitrator issued a final award in favor of Petitioner in or about September 4, 2019, for the principal amount of $15,375, which has been accrued for in the Company’s contingent liabilities as of December 31, 2018. The award was transitioned to an entry of judgment in the total amount of $18,692 on or about February 27, 2020, against Pineapple Express, Inc. without specificity as to the judgment debtor’s state of incorporation, and Pineapple Express Consulting Inc., which remains due and outstanding. The accrual in the Company’s contingent liabilities as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021, is $18,692.

Cunningham v. Pineapple Express, Inc.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number: BS171779: Judgment, ordered by the Department of Industrial Relations, Labor Commissioner’s Office was entered by the Court on December 11, 2017. The amount of judgment entered was $47,674. Enforcement on the Judgment is continuing. Finnegan & Diba was retained to defend enforcement proceedings and substituted out of the matter in March 2019. This claim was accrued for in the Company’s contingent liabilities as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021.

Pineapple Express, Inc. v. Cunningham

Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number: SC 127731 was filed June 21, 2017. This action arose from certain complaint and cross-complaint which were both dismissed. Defendant Cunningham pursued a cost judgment against Plaintiff and obtained a judgment in the amount of $2,367, which remains outstanding to date and since January 22, 2018. This amount has been accrued for in the Company’s contingent liabilities as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021. Enforcement proceedings have ensued and said judgment remains outstanding to date. Finnegan & Diba was not the counsel of record when judgment was entered and only addressed enforcement proceedings until such time it was substituted out as counsel of record in or about June 14, 2019.

StoryCorp Consulting, dba Wells Compliance Group v. Pineapple Express, Inc.

JAMS Arbitration Reference Number: 1210037058, filed December 18, 2019. This matter arises from dispute over certain services agreement entered into between the parties in or about January 31, 2019. In 2020, the parties agreed on a settlement amount of $15,000. The parties self-represented in arbitration and a final arbitration award was issued in the amount $23,805 on or about October 27, 2020, against the Company. Claimant has since filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against Pineapple Express, Inc. a California Corporation, with the Los Angeles Superior Court bearing Case Number 20STCP04003, set for hearing on April 12, 2021. On information and belief, Pineapple Express Inc., a California Corporation, is not affiliated with Pineapple Inc., a Nevada Corporation, formerly known as Pineapple Express, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation. Claimant amended its complaint on or about February 3, 2021, to include Defendant Pineapple Express, Inc., a Wyoming corporation. A default judgement was entered on May 11, 2021, against Pineapple Express, Inc., in the amount of $29,280. Defendant, Pineapple Inc., a Nevada Corporation, is not a party to the pending matter to date. The parties hope to engage in settlement discussions and resolve this matter. The $29,280 has been accrued for as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021, in the Company’s contingent liabilities.

Russ Schamun v. Pineapple Express Consulting, Inc.

This is a small claims matter for $7,500 filed by an independent contractor. There was a hearing date on August 23, 2019, and judgment was awarded to Russ Schamun. This creditor will be satisfied once the Company is in a position to satisfy the judgment. The $7,500 has been accrued for as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021, in the Company’s contingent liabilities.

SRFF v. Pineapple Express, Inc.

This matter resulted in a stipulated judgment whereas former SEC counsel claimed approximately $60,000 in legal work that was not paid for. The Company claimed that the work being charged for (a registration statement to be filed with the SEC) was not completed. Regardless of this fact, the Company signed a payment plan and confession of judgment if the plan was not honored. The result was a judgment entered in favor of SRFF because of the confession. This creditor will be satisfied once the Company is in a position to satisfy the judgment. The settlement amount has been accrued for in the Company’s accounts payable and accrued liabilities balance at September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021.

Novinger v. Pineapple Express, Inc.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number: 20CHLC10510 was filed in or about March 11, 2020. This is a limited jurisdiction action arising from a claim for monies lent to Pineapple Express, Inc. without specificity as to the judgment debtor’s state of incorporation, for the total of $30,851, which is accrued for in the Company’s related party notes payable (Note 7) as of September 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021. On September 23, 2020, a default judgment was entered against the Company. The parties are working to resolve the matter or alternatively vacate and set aside the default judgment entered unbeknownst to the Company.