Little v. Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRAND LITTLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCUREMENT,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-01098-AGT
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Re: Dkt. No. 740
On behalf of the proposed class, Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of three settle-
ment agreements that resolve Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Pacific Dream Seafoods,
Inc., Caito Fisheries, Inc., the Caito Siblings (James, Jeanette, John, and Joseph), and non-
parties Fisherman’s Choice LLC and Gerard Wetle, Jr. See Dkt. 740-2, -3, -4 (settlement
agreements). Pacific Dream has agreed to pay $1 million to settle Plaintiffs’ claims; the Caito
Defendants have agreed to pay $1.25 million; and Fisherman’s Choice and Wetle have
agreed to cooperate with Plaintiffs in ongoing litigation against the non-settling Defendants.
Before preliminarily approving a class settlement, the Court must make a preliminary
finding that the settlement “is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). To
do so, the Court often compares the settlement amount to the estimated value of the class’s
claims. See Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 176 F. Supp. 3d 930, 935 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (referring to the
comparison between “plaintiffs’ expected recovery” and “the value of the settlement offer”
as “perhaps the most important factor to consider”). Here, Plaintiffs haven’t offered any
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 806 Filed 08/03/26 Page 1 of 2

2
details about the estimated value of the class’s claims. They’ve identified the settling de-
fendants’ market share, see dkt. 740-1, Gross Decl. ¶¶ 27, 34, but market share doesn’t reveal
how much the claims are worth. Without that missing detail, the Court cannot determine
whether the settlements are fair and reasonable. See Livingston v. MiTAC Digital Corp., No.
18-CV-05993-JST, 2019 WL 8504695, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2019) (“[A]ny fraction has
a denominator, and without knowing what it is the Court cannot balance plaintiffs’ expected
recovery against the proposed settlement amount.”).
By August 11, 2026, Plaintiffs must publicly file a supplemental submission in which
they estimate the value of their claims. Plaintiffs needn’t disclose in detail how they arrived
at their estimate, but they should provide the Court with some reasoning. Plaintiffs should
also provide the Court with an explanation for why the ratio of the amount recovered in
settlement to the amount that could have been obtained at trial is reasonable. Any party may
submit a response to Plaintiffs’ supplemental submission by August 18, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 31, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 806 Filed 08/03/26 Page 2 of 2