Buchanan v. Vuori, Inc.
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:23-cv-01121
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Buchanan v. Vuori, Judge Cousins ordered attorney James Dal Bon to explain his absence, provide the order to his client, and attend another conference.
Attorney James Dal Bon must provide the order to Terrence Buchanan, respond by September 17, 2025, and attend the September 24, 2025 conference in person. The order also concerns the possible handling of a renewed class-action settlement motion.
What happened
In Buchanan v. Vuori, Inc., attorney James Dal Bon did not attend a scheduled case management conference on September 3, 2025. The court also noted his earlier missed hearing and concerns about delays, missed communications, and changing damages calculations.
The court ordered Dal Bon to give the order to plaintiff Terrence Buchanan and file a written response by September 17 explaining his absence and why he should not be referred to the court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct. The court also scheduled another conference for September 24 and required Dal Bon to attend in person.
Judge Nathanael Cousins issued the order. The order did not decide the underlying claims or approve a class-action settlement; it addressed counsel’s conduct and the next case-management steps.
The detailed version
- Buchanan v. Vuori, Inc. · No. 5:23-cv-01121
- Nathanael Cousins
- Sept. 3, 2025
Background
The court held a scheduled case management conference on September 3, 2025, at 10 a.m. Plaintiff’s attorney, James Dal Bon, failed to appear. The court stated that Dal Bon had previously failed to appear at a January 2025 hearing concerning plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of a class-action settlement. The court had denied that motion without prejudice six months earlier.
The court also described concerns raised by defense counsel about Dal Bon’s delays in responding to communications, failure to provide follow-up on promised dates, failure to attend a planned videoconference, and sudden changes in damages calculations. The opinion states that the court was concerned about whether it could approve a renewed motion for preliminary approval of a class-action settlement given Dal Bon’s conduct and approach to litigating the case as a solo practitioner. It cited the requirement that settlements reached before class certification receive close scrutiny, including consideration of whether class counsel adequately represented the class.
Orders
The court ordered Dal Bon to provide a copy of the order to his client, Terrence Buchanan. It also ordered Dal Bon to file a written response by September 17, 2025, explaining why he did not attend the September 3 case management conference and why he should not be referred to the court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct.
The court set another case management conference for September 24, 2025, at 10 a.m. at the San Jose Courthouse, Courtroom 5, fourth floor. Defense counsel may appear in person or by videoconference, but Dal Bon must appear in person.
Effect of the Order
This is a procedural order concerning attorney attendance, a required explanation, possible professional-conduct referral, and future case management. It does not decide the parties’ underlying claims, determine whether a class should be certified, or approve a settlement. The opinion does not state that the court referred Dal Bon to the Standing Committee; it ordered him to explain why such a referral should not occur.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.