Little

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRAND LITTLE, Case No. 23-cv-01098-AGT

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

v. Re: Dkt. No.

PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCUREMENT,

LLC, et al., Defendants.

The Court grants Pacific Seafood’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend all claims except Brand Little’s standalone claim for declaratory relief. * * * 1. Sherman Act § 1. Little, a crabber who catches Dungeness crab off the West Coast of the United States, contends that Pacific Seafood has conspired with other direct purchasers of Dungeness crab to fix and suppress the prices they offer crabbers. Little bases his claim in part on allegations of parallel conduct. He alleges that other direct purchasers wait to set the prices they offer crabbers for fresh crab until Pacific Seafood sets its price, and that most (if not all) direct purchasers set prices that are substantially sim- ilar to Pacific Seafood’s. See Compl. ¶¶ 82–83, 106–110, 191–92, 216–18. Parallel conduct is consistent with conspiracy, but it is insufficient on its own to state a § 1 claim. See In re Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litig., 798 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2015).…