Gibas vs. Barua

5 Rezai vs. Plaintiffs Ramin Monfared and Negin Almassi’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion Monfared for Entry of Judgment against defendants Zara Rezai a/k/a Zahra Rezai, Andy Andalibian, Greg M Tonkinson, individually and as alleged successor or Trustee of the Coast Highway Ramfared trust, dated November 28, 2022, Alliance Construction Co., and New Dawn Jenkins LLC (“Defendants” together) is GRANTED.

The parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement which required Defendants to sell real property and put $450,000 into escrow for payments to Plaintiffs. (Jafari Decl. ¶¶ 2-5, Ex. 1.) Defendants violated the terms of the agreement and failed to take the actions required. Defendants were notified of the default, but refused or failed to cure it. Defendants were also served notice of the motion and hearing.

Pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code § 664.6 and the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties, the court will grant the motion and enter judgment in the total amount of $450,000.00, plus 10% annual interest from the date entry of judgment is made.

While the agreement also permits recovery of attorney fees and costs, Plaintiffs will need to seek those under a separate motion as there was no evidence of attorney fees and costs in the present motion.

Plaintiffs are also directed to file a proposed judgment for the court to review and sign.

Plaintiffs to give notice. 6 Gibas vs. Before the court is an unopposed motion filed by attorneys Rye Barua Mhtar of Buffington Law Firm, P.C. (“Attorneys”), requesting to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiffs Donald Joseph Gibas and Billie Jo Gibas, Both in Their Individual Capacity and As Trustees of the Gibas Family Revocable Living Trust Dated July 5, (“Clients” together). The motion is GRANTED.

Attorneys have complied with the requirements of California Rule of Court 3.1362, and filed and served forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC- 053 on Clients and on the defendant. The court finds Attorneys have provided a valid and sufficient reason for requesting to be relieved as counsel for Clients. As such, the court GRANTS the motion.

The order relieving counsel shall not be effective until Attorneys file with the court a proof of service showing the signed order granting the motion has been served on Clients. Until such time, Attorneys shall remain counsel of record.

Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to October 9, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.

Attorneys are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 7 Schutzman v. Before the Court is a special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP) brought Stern by defendants Oren Stern and Amit Louzon as to the first cause of