Buchanan v. Vuori

Background

On October 3, 2025, Terrence Buchanan filed a second motion for preliminary approval of a class-action settlement, followed by a corrected motion. Attorney James Dal Bon signed and filed the motion. The court issued this order because it found fabricated quotations and case-law problems in the corrected motion.

Court’s concerns

The court identified eight instances in which the motion attributed quoted language to real cases, but the quoted language did not appear in those cases. The court stated that these false quotations made up most of the case quotations in the motion, with only a couple of the quotations appearing in the cases cited.

The court also found that portions of the motion relied heavily on a case identified as “Reed v. ZipRecruiter, Inc.” The cited Westlaw reference instead led to a state-and-local-tax update, and the court stated that it was not otherwise aware of a case by that name or of an order issued on the date cited.

Legal standards

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), a lawyer who signs, files, submits, or later advocates a written court filing certifies that, after a reasonable investigation, the legal claims and arguments are supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for changing or developing the law. Rule 11 allows a court to impose an appropriate sanction after giving the lawyer notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The court also noted that its local rules require lawyers practicing in the court to follow the professional-conduct standards applicable to members of the State Bar of California. California’s professional-conduct rule on candor prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a court. The court’s local rules permit referral to its Standing Committee on Professional Conduct when the court has cause to believe a lawyer engaged in unprofessional conduct.

Order

The court ordered Dal Bon to file a written response by November 12, 2025, explaining the false case citation and quotations and showing cause—that is, explaining why—he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(c) and referred to the Standing Committee on Professional Conduct. Dal Bon must also serve the order on his client and file proof of service by that date.

The court set a November 19, 2025 hearing by Zoom webinar. The hearing will occur alongside the motion for settlement approval and the case-management conference. The court stated that it would address the pending settlement-approval motion after receiving Dal Bon’s response and holding the hearing. The order did not impose a sanction or decide whether to approve the settlement. The court also noted earlier concerns about the adequacy of class representation and that Vuori had filed a statement of non-opposition to the settlement-approval motion.