Saadeh vs. Bdair

of any of the objections. Rather, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have refused to grant sufficient extensions in time to respond to the discovery requests, but Defendant has granted Plaintiffs multiple extensions of time to respond to the requests, yet no substantive responses were served. Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that Plaintiffs were forced to serve responses consisting of objections only because Defendant would not grant any extension in time to respond beyond January 5, 2026. But Plaintiffs’ counsel also states that a 2 week extension was requested, yet there was no service of supplemental substantive responses after the 14 days Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed was needed to prepare complete responses.

Plaintiffs’ counsel now claims that even more extensions are required for substantive responses to be provided to Defendant. In light of this pattern of dilatory tactics that have enabled Plaintiffs to avoid any substantive participation in discovery, the Court does not find it necessary to continue these hearings any further.

Moving Defendant shall provide notice.

3 Saadeh vs. Bdair Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

The motion of attorney Robert A. von Esch IV and David V. Luu of von Esch Law Group ALC to withdraw as attorney of record for defendant Mohamed Bdair is GRANTED and effective upon filing of the proof of service on client. (Code Civ. Proc. § 284, CRC 3.1362.)

Moving attorney is to give notice.

Moving attorney shall also give notice of Plaintiff Belal Saadeh’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Correct and Clarify the Court’s May 29, 2026 Order (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(D); Inherent Authority); or, In The Alternative, For Reconsideration set on August 21, 2026 at 9:30 AM.