Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Crabbers win preliminary approval for partial settlement in crab price-fixing case, (Aug 26, 2026)

By Steven Melendez

Despite preliminary approval of the $2.25 million settlement with three sets of crab buyers, litigation will continues in the overall case.

In a class action case brought by crabbers who allege a buyers’ cartel suppressed prices of Dungeness crab, the federal district court in San Francisco, California gave preliminary approval a partial settlement with three sets of crab buyers who collectively had 5.27 percent of the market as the case proceeds against other parties. The settlement will create a $2.25 million fund, which attorneys will use to cover costs including expert fees, but not attorney fees, as they seek a larger total award from the remaining defendants (Little v. Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-01098-AGT (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2026)).

Background. The case was brought by crabbers in California, Oregon, and Washington who caught and sold Dungeness crab off the boat after January 1, 2016. They brought suit against crab buyers alleging they maintained an illegal cartel to fix and suppress crab prices.

The case was initially brought on March 13, 2023 against six defendants, known as the Pacific Seafood Defendants, under federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws including the Sherman Act. The case was dismissed with leave to amend on May 21, 2024. Thanks to additional investigation, the crabbers alleged they uncovered evidence that strongly supported price-fixing claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). They also identified 29 more buyers allegedly involved in the price-fixing and added them as defendants in a First Amended Complaint, while adding additional buyers as unnamed co-conspirators.

On November 1, 2024, the buyers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss. The court rejected the motion on January 17, 2025, finding the crabbers had adequately alleged the existence of a price-fixing conspiracy, while granting motions to dismiss as to three alleged participants. A Second Amended Complaint brought additional allegations to support claims against one of the dismissed defendants, whose subsequent motion to dismiss was denied. After additional discovery, the crabbers filed three more amended complaints, with a Fifth Amended Complaint filed on February 3, 2026 adding an additional plaintiff, additional defendants, an Oregon-specific class, and claims on behalf of that class.

The crabbers indicated in a motion requesting preliminary approval of the settlement that they have received a “significant volume of documents and communications” as fact discovery continues, as well as “extensive third-party discovery” from state fish and wildlife agencies, cellphone carriers whose records allegedly showed communication between crab buyers, and third-parties involved in the Dungeness crab industry.

Settling parties. The crabbers received preliminary certification of a First Round Settlement Class including “all persons who, during the First Round Settlement Class Period, made ex vessel sales of Dungeness crab caught off the coast of, or landed in, California, Oregon, and/or coastal Washington (not including Puget Sound), on their own behalf,” excluding defendants, court staff, government agencies, and their various affiliates.

The settling buyers include Pacific Dream, a buyer and distributor that purchased approximately 10,838,044 million pounds of crab between the 2015-2016 and 2024—2025 for approximately $47,160,467, representing approximately 2.3 percent of crab purchases per pound in the Pacific Northwest. Also included in the settlement is Caito Inc., a buyer and distributor located in California that sold its assets to defendant Southwind Foods, LLC, in July 2023 and ceased operations, along with its former owners, the Caito siblings. Caito represented approximately 2.9 percent of the market in the relevant time frame. Fisherman’s Choice LLC, a buyer and distributor based in California and described in a motion for approval of the settlement as a “relatively small buyer,” representing just 0.14 percent of the market, also agreed to settle.

Settlement terms. Pacific Dream agreed to pay $1 million at the time of final approval of the settlement, as well as provide text messages between its principals and other defendants. It also agreed not to object to the deposition of those principals. The Caito parties have agreed to pay $1.25 million. Fisherman’s Choice has agreed to cooperate by conferring with class counsel about matters relevant to the case and to assist in preparation for taking testimony of other parties.

Settlement class counsel is not seeking attorney fees but rather to have proceeds deposited into a qualified settlement fund from which they will seek reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses including expert fees.

The crabbers agreed to release all claims against the settling parties and Caito-related claims against Southwind, while preserving other claims against Southwind.

Preliminary approval. The magistrate judge noted that based on an “underpayment estimation model” comparing prices paid in Puget Sound versus the area at issue in the case, Pacific Dream’s settlement represents a 16.75 percent recovery, the Caito settlement represents a 16.61 percent recovery, and the Fisherman’s Choice settlement includes no monetary recovery.

“Several years into this price-fixing case, Plaintiffs still need to clear many hurdles to prevail, and liability is vigorously contested,” according to the ruling. “Against this backdrop, and with litigation costs piling up, Plaintiffs made a sensible decision to settle for one-sixth of the estimated nontrebled recovery with Pacific Dream and the Caito Defendants and to execute a robust cooperation agreement with non-party Fisherman’s Choice with the intention of using these results to pursue a much larger recovery from the non-settling Defendants.”

Additionally, the crabbers identified “a collectability risk” with Caito Fisheries, Inc., no longer operating and potentially unable to pay a larger judgment, and obtaining a recovery sooner eliminates that risk, according to the ruling.

The court granted preliminary approval, ordering settlement class counsel to move for final approval by November 6, 2026, with a fairness hearing scheduled for December 18, 2026.

The Case is No. 3:23-cv-01098-AGT.

Judge: Tse, A.

Attorneys: Matthew Sinclair Weiler (Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim LLP) for Brand Little. Charles H. Samel (Stoel Rives LLP) for Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC.

Companies: Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews