Little v. Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC et al

On March 13, 2023, Brand Little (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Stuart George Gross, Travis H.A. Smith, and Ross A. Middlemiss of Gross Klein PC; and Steven N. Williams, Ronnie S. Spiegel, and Elissa A. Buchanan of Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC; Pacific Seafood Processing, LLC; Pacific Seafood Fleet, LLC; Pacific Seafood Distribution, LLC; Pacific Seafood USA, LLC; and Does 1-30 (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking injunctive relief and damages for alleged monopolization, restraint of trade, and violations of the Sherman Act. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, with Judge Alex G. Tse presiding.

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, “Plaintiff and the Class are the approximately 1,400 independent commercial crabbers who land Dungeness crab in California, coastal Washington.”

Plaintiff alleged, “Before that crab makes it to consumers’ plates it passes through two markets. The first market, and the one at issue in this action, is the Pacific NW Area’s wholesale-input market in which Class members sell the live crab they have caught to what are known in the industry as ‘buyers,’ both directly, which is referred to as ‘ex vessel,’ and indirectly, which involves a secondary transaction wherein the ex vessel buyer sells the crab to a further buyer.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Pacific Seafood has achieved this control over Dungeness crab ex vessel prices in the Pacific NW Area through a multi-pronged illegal strategy of (a) monoposinzation of the Pacific NW Area’s Dungeness crab wholesale-input market, (b) coercive combinations with other Dungeness crab wholesale buyers, (c) and coercive combinations with certain Dungeness crabbers.”

Plaintiff further alleged that “Pacific Seafood has monopsonized the Pacific NW Area’s Dungeness crab wholesale-input market through a concerted and willful acquisition and maintenance of that power via the aforementioned coercive combinations—which involve illegal refusals to deal, group boycotts, dumping, tying, and falsification of official ex vessel price records—as well as its own illegal unilateral conduct, rather than through the development of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Over approximately the last 40 years, Pacific Seafood (directly or through its owner Frank Dulcich) has purchased and, in several cases, shut down, all of the other significant Dungeness crab processors in the Pacific NW Area.”

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged, “Pacific Seafood will dump cheap live Dungeness crab into the geographic areas of other buyers who have not complied with its pricing dictates, offering them for sale to retail, restaurant, and similar buyers for a price at or below what non-compliant buyers have paid ex vessel.”

Plaintiff presented seven claims for relief, including for alleged monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, attempted monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, unlawful agreements in restraint of trade, restraint of trade, and declaratory relief. 

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested a judgment for injunctive and declaratory relief as well as an award of treble damages and costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.