Rim Mahfoud v. Peter Anthony Letizia, et al.

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. P) September 3, 2026 DEPARTMENT P LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Ruling Rim Mahfoud v. Peter Anthony Letizia, et al., Case No. 24SMCV00436 Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Motion to Enforce Settlement

On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff Rim Mahfoud, in pro per, sued Defendants Peter Anthony Letizia, Wonder Nights, LLC d/b/a Byblos Restaurant, and Does 1-10 for breach of contract, fraud, negligence, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On May 30, 2025, the parties filed a settlement agreement. On June 10, 2025, the Court signed a stipulation and order for settlement. On July 31, 2026, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Enforce Settlement. As of September 1, 2026, the Court has not received any opposition.

"If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 664.6, subd. (a).)

When considering a motion to enforce a settlement under Sec. 664.6, the court seeks to determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement of all or part of the case. (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 905.)

A party moving for entry of judgment under Sec. 664.6 need not establish a breach of the settlement agreement; the court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the settlement regardless of whether the settlement's obligations were performed, breached or excused. (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1184-1185.)

Plaintiff seeks to enter judgment pursuant to settlement agreement filed with the court on May 30, 2025. The Court retained jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6. (See Stipulation and Order for Settlement (June 10, 2025), P. 10.)

The Court finds that the parties have entered an enforceable agreement pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. Plaintiff's evidence establishes that Defendants owe $7,000 under the settlement agreement, plus $476.16 in recoverable interest. (Id. at P. 2.; Mahfoud Decl., P. 12.)

The motion to enforce is therefore GRANTED. The Court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff Rim Mahfoud and against Defendants in the amount of $7,476,16.

Case Number: 24SMCV06059 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: P Tentative Ruling Shahid Sheikh, et al. v. Assil Gaur Eye Institute, et al., Case No. 24SMCV06059 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend to File Second Amended Complaint Hearing Date: September 3, 2026

Background

Plaintiffs Shahid Sheikh (individually "Sheikh") and his wife Gabriele Gasafy (collectively "Plaintiffs") sue Defendants Assil Gaur Eye Institute and Dr. Kerry Assil for medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and loss of consortium arising from cataract surgery. The Sheikhs allege that Sheikh agreed to have Dr. Assil place a specific type of intraocular lens in his eye, but that Dr. Assil placed a different intraocular lens during surgery, leaving Sheikh nearsighted in his right eye and causing visual distortion. (Complaint, P.P. 17-19.)

On December 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the complaint. On January 21, 2025, Defendants answered. On May 7, 2026, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On July 8, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file a First Amended Complaint and continued trial and all associated discovery dates to March 7, 2027.

On August 6, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. On August 24, 2026, Defendants filed opposition. On August 25, 2026, Plaintiffs replied.

Arguments

Plaintiffs request leave to amend to add a sixth cause of action for medical battery. Plaintiffs contend that the medical battery claim rests on the same facts alleged in the initial pleading, that Plaintiff authorized a different type of intraocular lens than the one that was ultimately implanted in his eye. (Motion for Leave to Amend, pp. 3-4.)

Plaintiffs argue that justice favors hearing all claims arising from the same incident together and that leave to amend will not prejudice Defendants because trial is not until March 1, 2027. (Id. at pp. 7-8.)