Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 12 – Contingencies Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company may become involved in lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the course of business. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation with a specific degree of confidence. The Company is currently not aware of any legal proceedings or potential claims against it whose outcome would be likely, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, operating results, or cash flows, other than those described below. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements For Year Ended December 31, 2022 and 2021 Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company may become involved in lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the course of business. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation with total confidence. The Company is currently not aware of any litigation or asserted potential litigation against it whose outcome would be likely, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, operating results, or cash flows, other than those described below. Anthony Davis v. YayYo, Inc., and Ramy El-Batrawi: No 20STCV09143 Robert Vanech v. YayYo, Inc., and Ramy El-Batrawi, No. 21STCV45724 These two cases Anthony Davis v. YayYo, Inc., and Ramy El-Batrawi: No 20STCV09143 (Davis) and Robert Vanech v. YayYo, Inc., and Ramy El-Batrawi, No. 21STCV45724 (Vanech) raise similar claims against the Company by two former executives who worked briefly for the Company in 2016-17. The Davis complaint was filed on March 5, 2020, in the Los Angeles Superior Court by plaintiff Anthony Davis, who like Vanech was hired by the Company as its CEO (Davis) or CFO (Vanech) and as directors on or about December 2016. Both Vanech’ s and Davis’s employment with the Company ended after several months. As part of their compensation, Davis/Vanech allege that they expected to receive stock options in the Company. In their respective pleadings, both Davis and Vanech admit that each person resigned from their executive officer and director positions but assert that they did not receive certain compensation in the form of stock options. The Company denies liability and has asserted that it has paid Davis and/or Vanech all amounts due to them under their respective employment agreements/settlement agreements, while also asserting that both Davis and Vanech failed to exercise their respective stock options before they expired on December 31, 2018. The Company filed a demurrer to each plaintiff’s amended complaint, which the Superior Court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff Davis has since filed a second amended complaint on October 8, 2021, to which the Company has filed an answer. The Company’s position is that the lawsuits entirely lack merit, and the Company intends to defend each case vigorously. Plaintiffs have now filed a motion to consolidate the two actions-based similarity of the facts (and defenses) and that motion is pending. The cases, whether consolidated or not, are expected to go to trial later in 2023 and will be decided in two bench trials or pursuant to summary judgement. The Company’s position as to both lawsuits is that Davis’ and Vanech’s claims entirely lack merit, and the Company intends to defend against the lawsuits vigorously. Zada v. EVMO, Inc and Rami El-Batrawi, Los Angeles Superior Court No. 21STCV43510 On November 29, 2021, a complaint was filed by Norman Zada, a Company shareholder, against EVmo and El-Batrawi alleging breach of contract and fraud in connection with the plaintiff’s purchase of 20,000 shares of Common Stock in February 2018 that the plaintiff claims he did not receive for over three years. By the time the plaintiff was able to acquire the 20,000 shares, the value of the stock had dropped to $1.90 per share. By virtue of the allegedly late delivery of shares, the plaintiff alleges damages of approximately $94,420. Other allegations of wrongdoing on Mr. El-Batrawi’s behalf are included in the complaint but add nothing of a material nature to the legal dispute. Both El-Batrawi and EVmo presently intend to file demurrers to the Complaint and if necessary vigorously defendant the lawsuit on the merits. Bellridge Capital, LP, v. EVmo, Inc., 1:21-cv-07091-PGG (Filed in Southern District of New York) In the first half of 2021, a warrant holder, Bellridge Capital, LP (“Bellridge”), sought to exercise a warrant for 1,500,000 shares, with a stated exercise price of $4.00 per share, for a nominal amount, claiming that an anti-dilution adjustment had been triggered in 2020, which had reduced the exercise price to such amount. The Company rejected the exercise, on the basis that the warrant had previously been amended to remove that anti-dilution adjustment. In September 2021, the warrant holder brought suit for damages in the Southern District of New York. In March 2023, the parties to this litigation entered into a settlement agreement. Please see Note 14- “Subsequent Events” below.

Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 12 – Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company may become involved in lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the course of business. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation with a specific degree of confidence. The Company is currently not aware of any legal proceedings or potential claims against it whose outcome would be likely, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, operating results, or cash flows, other than those described below.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

For Year Ended December 31, 2022 and 2021

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company may become involved in lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the course of business. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation with total confidence. The Company is currently not aware of any litigation or asserted potential litigation against it whose outcome would be likely, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, operating results, or cash flows, other than those described below.

Anthony Davis v. YayYo, Inc., and Ramy El-Batrawi: No 20STCV09143

Robert Vanech v. YayYo, Inc., and Ramy El-Batrawi, No. 21STCV45724

These two cases Anthony Davis v. YayYo, Inc., and Ramy El-Batrawi: No 20STCV09143 (Davis) and Robert Vanech v. YayYo, Inc., and Ramy El-Batrawi, No. 21STCV45724 (Vanech) raise similar claims against the Company by two former executives who worked briefly for the Company in 2016-17. The Davis complaint was filed on March 5, 2020, in the Los Angeles Superior Court by plaintiff Anthony Davis, who like Vanech was hired by the Company as its CEO (Davis) or CFO (Vanech) and as directors on or about December 2016. Both Vanech’ s and Davis’s employment with the Company ended after several months. As part of their compensation, Davis/Vanech allege that they expected to receive stock options in the Company. In their respective pleadings, both Davis and Vanech admit that each person resigned from their executive officer and director positions but assert that they did not receive certain compensation in the form of stock options. The Company denies liability and has asserted that it has paid Davis and/or Vanech all amounts due to them under their respective employment agreements/settlement agreements, while also asserting that both Davis and Vanech failed to exercise their respective stock options before they expired on December 31, 2018. The Company filed a demurrer to each plaintiff’s amended complaint, which the Superior Court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff Davis has since filed a second amended complaint on October 8, 2021, to which the Company has filed an answer. The Company’s position is that the lawsuits entirely lack merit, and the Company intends to defend each case vigorously. Plaintiffs have now filed a motion to consolidate the two actions-based similarity of the facts (and defenses) and that motion is pending. The cases, whether consolidated or not, are expected to go to trial later in 2023 and will be decided in two bench trials or pursuant to summary judgement.

The Company’s position as to both lawsuits is that Davis’ and Vanech’s claims entirely lack merit, and the Company intends to defend against the lawsuits vigorously.

Zada v. EVMO, Inc and Rami El-Batrawi, Los Angeles Superior Court No. 21STCV43510

On November 29, 2021, a complaint was filed by Norman Zada, a Company shareholder, against EVmo and El-Batrawi alleging breach of contract and fraud in connection with the plaintiff’s purchase of 20,000 shares of Common Stock in February 2018 that the plaintiff claims he did not receive for over three years. By the time the plaintiff was able to acquire the 20,000 shares, the value of the stock had dropped to $1.90 per share. By virtue of the allegedly late delivery of shares, the plaintiff alleges damages of approximately $94,420. Other allegations of wrongdoing on Mr. El-Batrawi’s behalf are included in the complaint but add nothing of a material nature to the legal dispute. Both El-Batrawi and EVmo presently intend to file demurrers to the Complaint and if necessary vigorously defendant the lawsuit on the merits.

Bellridge Capital, LP, v. EVmo, Inc., 1:21-cv-07091-PGG (Filed in Southern District of New York)

In the first half of 2021, a warrant holder, Bellridge Capital, LP (“Bellridge”), sought to exercise a warrant for 1,500,000 shares, with a stated exercise price of $4.00 per share, for a nominal amount, claiming that an anti-dilution adjustment had been triggered in 2020, which had reduced the exercise price to such amount. The Company rejected the exercise, on the basis that the warrant had previously been amended to remove that anti-dilution adjustment. In September 2021, the warrant holder brought suit for damages in the Southern District of New York. In March 2023, the parties to this litigation entered into a settlement agreement. Please see Note 14- “Subsequent Events” below.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for loss and gain contingencies. Describes any existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as of the balance sheet date (or prior to issuance of the financial statements) as to a probable or reasonably possible loss incurred by an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur, and typically discloses the amount of loss recorded or a range of possible loss, or an assertion that no reasonable estimate can be made.

+ References + Details