Fluent never claimed that the soil was contaminated (the soil was brought in and put into containers - the whole nursery is on concrete).
In fact, nobody knows where the contamination came from. There were guesses (thoughts) that it was from the rainwater dripping from the trusses of the building. And there is the idea that it is actually airborne.
The only main argument is whether contamination was present before Fluent was there and during the tenure of the nursery, who's responsibility it falls under, and whether CIGN should get paid for their labor.
And, in my opinion, it was there before and during Fluent's time. Feldenkrais, in my opinion, defrauded Fluent with making it out to appear the nursery was suitable enough to pass DOH.
Fluent has proof that the hemp Feldenkrais was growing before they arrived had heavy metals in them from the COA's. Not only that, but one of Feldenkrais's own employees during their deposition admitted that after Fluent left, they did a hemp test run and it turned out to be contaminated so they quit. That was 2 years ago.
Also, Feldenkrais was never using any hemp from the farm for their so called "products." Why would you not do that?
While some CIGN claims in their lawsuit are good, I believe Fluent has a stronger position. They are also counter-suing CIGN, CIGN Real Estate and Michael Feldenkrais.
There are two premises I believe Fluent needs to make a point on to win the lawsuit:
(1) Contamination (and subsequent cover-up if there is one) before and during the tenure of the nursery.
(2) Convincing the courts that, according to the service agreement, CIGN was to only be paid for their output of product. If no output was produced, then why pay for the services of CIGN?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
