The family members and business entities named in a $400 million lawsuit by Albert Bushala have formally responded in court, asking a judge to dismiss the case on multiple legal grounds. Their filings argue that Albert’s claims of a decades-long family partnership are not only unprovable but legally unenforceable and that the core dispute revolves around inheritance planning, not business misconduct.

Filed in April, the defendants’ response takes the form of a demurrer, a motion asking the court to throw out the lawsuit on the grounds that even if all the allegations are true, they still don’t amount to a valid legal claim. Among those seeking dismissal are Tony Bushala, George Bushala Jr., Salma Bushala-Hamud, and the Bushala parents, George Sr. and Sylvia Bushala, along with more than a dozen related entities and trusts.

Albert’s complaint describes what he calls an oral “Family Partnership Agreement” going back to the 1980s, under which he, Tony, and George Jr. allegedly co-owned dozens of real estate assets alongside their father. The agreement, according to the complaint, promised each son a one-third share of the real estate empire, regardless of which individual or LLC held legal title, and excluded their mother and sister.

In their filings, the defendants dispute this version of events entirely. They argue that: no such agreement ever existed in writing, violating California’s statute of frauds, which requires contracts involving real estate or post-death transfers to be written and signed; the partnership terms, even if they did exist, would be unenforceable because they rely on oral promises to distribute property after the death of George Sr., who is still alive; the properties in question were clearly owned and transferred through estate planning mechanisms and trusts, not partnership structures.

They also describe the lawsuit as a “blatant attempt to prematurely contest his parents’ estate plan while they remain alive,” arguing that Albert is trying to circumvent California probate law and force early redistribution of assets over which he has no legal claim.

A key theme in the defendants’ legal strategy is that Albert waited too long to bring his claims. Their demurrers lay out detailed timelines of real estate transfers, some going back to the early 1990s, arguing that all relevant statutes of limitation, ranging from two to four years depending on the cause of action, have long since expired.

To support this, they cite recorded property deeds and ownership changes, such as the transfer of the “trophy property” on Cahuenga Boulevard into various LLCs and trusts between 2003 and 2012.

While the defendants claim that the property on Cahuenga Boulevard was transferred out of Albert’s reach in 2012, California Secretary of State records show that George Bushala remained the listed manager of SBH Cahuenga, LLC, the entity that held the property, until at least 2020. Salma Bushala-Hamud’s name did not appear on state filings until January 2023, within two years of Albert filing his complaint. This is also true of another entity, ANB Properties, LLC, which had George Bushala listed as manager until at least 2021. Tony Bushala was listed as the sole manager in the 2023 filing. These situations raise questions about when control was truly transferred: at the time of deed recording or when the LLC was restructured.

In addition to the demurrers, the defendants filed a motion to quash the subpoena of Leon Alexander, a longtime family attorney and corporate counsel for the Bushala entities. According to declarations submitted by George Jr. and legal counsel, Alexander not only served as an attorney but also acted as a formal and confidential mediator in a 2018 attempt to resolve the family dispute out of court.

The motion argues that Alexander’s deposition would violate attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and California’s exceptionally strong mediation confidentiality laws. The defendants are also requesting over $9,000 in sanctions against Albert’s legal team, alleging misuse of the discovery process.

A hearing on the motion to quash is scheduled for November 17, 2025.
A ruling on the demurrers, currently scheduled for September 15, 2025, will determine whether the case proceeds into discovery or is dismissed in whole or in part. If the court sustains the demurrers, Albert may be given an opportunity to amend the complaint or the case may be shut down entirely.

With a $400 million portfolio and political ties at stake, the outcome could reshape not only family fortunes but also the dynamics of influence in Fullerton.

GeorgeDemurrer
quashLeonAlexander
SalmaDemurrer

Support our advertisers click an ad below.