Restaurant Managers Ordered to Pay Tens of Thousands in Penalties; Fishing Vessel Owner and Operators Prohibited from Commercial Fishing in State.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) wildlife officers conducted an investigation into Dudley Market, a high-end restaurant and fish business in Venice, Calif., for unlawfully selling seafood while advertising its products as traceable, sustainable and lawfully sourced. The investigation found repeated violations of state and federal commercial fishing laws in 2020 and 2021.
Prosecutors from the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office and Santa Barbara and Los Angeles County district attorney’s
“Commercial fishing laws exist to protect our oceans and preserve marine ecosystems,” said Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman. “These businesses lured the public into thinking they were caring for our precious resources, when in reality, their fish was unlawfully sourced. Sustainability was the bait, but fraud was the hook. The message is clear; this kind of deception will not be tolerated.”
Conner Mitchell, 37, of Venice, and Taylor Grant, 41, of Santa Monica, managed Dudley Market in 2020 through the business entities Dudley Street Oyster Bar and Shark Bite Fish Co. Grant later ended her association with the business, while Mitchell continued overseeing daily operations and seafood procurement. Mitchell operated the commercial fishing vessel Jamaica Day, which he and Grant used to catch fish for the restaurant. Cody Martin, 30, of El Segundo, operated the commercial fishing vessel Predator and supplied fish to Dudley Market.
CDFW wildlife officers served search warrants on cellular devices belonging to Mitchell and Martin, as well as the chart plotter aboard the commercial fishing vessel Predator. Evidence obtained during the investigation revealed repeated violations of laws governing California’s commercial fishing and seafood industry.
Under California law, it is illegal to sell sport-caught fish commercially. Fish taken by a commercial vessel also must be lawfully brought to port and documented on an electronic fish ticket before being removed from the vessel. This documentation is critical for CDFW and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries to effectively manage California fisheries and ensure long-term sustainability.
The investigation revealed numerous violations of California commercial fishing laws, including the unlawful purchase, possession and sale of sport-caught fish such as rockfish, bluefin tuna and yellowtail; commercial fishing activity conducted without required licenses; failure to lawfully document federally managed species brought to shore; illegal harvest of rockfish within restricted conservation areas and state marine protected areas; and the marketing of unlawfully sourced seafood as sustainable, traceable and lawfully procured.
As part of the settlement Mitchell, Dudley Street Oyster Bar and Shark Bite Fish Co. were ordered to pay $58,226.25 in civil penalties, $15,000 to the Fish and Game Preservation Fund and $1,773.75 in court costs and fees in May 2026. Grant was ordered to pay $40,000 in civil penalties and $10,000 to the Fish and Game Preservation Fund in Jul. 2025. Martin was ordered to pay $8,000 in civil penalties and $2,000 to the Fish and Game Preservation Fund in Sep. 2025. Grant and Martin are prohibited from commercial fishing in California. Gilmer Grant, owner of fishing vessel Jamaica Day in 2020, was ordered to pay $10,000 in civil penalties and $5,000 to the Fish and Game Preservation Fund in Aug. 2025 and is prohibited from owning or operating a commercial fishing vessel in California.
The settlement also requires compliance oversight measures, public disclosure notices and additional
“Angelenos deserve to know that the seafood they purchase is safely sourced from businesses that are following the law and not jeopardizing local marine life,” according to Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto. “My office will always hold accountable those who violate laws designed to protect consumers and our fragile ecosystems.”
Santa Barbara County District Attorney John Savrnoch added, “Violating fishing regulations that are intended to preserve Marine Protected Areas threatens the environment and the fishing industry that depends on sustainable fish stocks in the future.”
The below is an update written by the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office
Santa Barbara County District Attorney John T. Savrnoch announced that the Consumer and Environmental Protection Unit of the District Attorney’s Office, working with the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, reached a settlement with multiple defendants related to violations of California’s commercial fishing laws and false advertising laws.
The investigation by CDFW revealed that, in 2020 and 2021, three of the Defendants, Conner Mitchell, Taylor Grant, and Cody Martin, engaged in illegal commercial fishing, including fishing in Marine Protected Areas off the coast of Santa Barbara Island. Mitchell and Grant later sold the fish at Dudley Market, a high-end restaurant Mitchell owned in Venice, California. The seafood was falsely advertised as traceable, sustainable, and lawfully sourced.
Mitchell and Grant managed Dudley Market during 2020 through the California business entities Dudley Street Oyster Bar LLC and Shark Bite Fish Co., LLC. Grant later ended her association with the business, while Mitchell continued overseeing daily operations and seafood procurement. Mitchell and Grant also operated the commercial fishing vessel (F/V) Jamaica Day, which Mitchell used to catch fish for the restaurant. Cody Martin, 30, of El Segundo, operated the F/V Predator and supplied fish to Dudley Market.
Wildlife Officers served search warrants on cellular devices belonging to Mitchell and Martin, as well as the chart plotter aboard the F/V Predator. Evidence obtained during the investigation revealed repeated violations of laws governing California’s commercial fishing and seafood industry.
Under California law, it is unlawful to sell sport-caught fish commercially. In addition, fish taken by a commercial vessel must be lawfully “landed” and documented on an electronic fish ticket before being removed from the vessel. Landing information is critical for CDFW and NOAA Fisheries to effectively manage California fisheries and ensure long-term sustainability.
The investigation documented numerous violations, including:
- Purchasing, possessing, and selling unlawfully sport-caught fish, including rockfish, bluefin tuna, and yellowtail
- Engaging in commercial fishing activity without required commercial fishing and fish business licenses • Failing to lawfully “land” federally managed species, including rockfish and bluefin tuna • Harvesting rockfish within restricted conservation areas and State Marine Protected Areas • Advertising unlawfully sourced fish as sustainable, traceable, and lawfully procured
The case was brought and resolved as a civil law enforcement action under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., by the Los Angeles City Attorney, Santa Barbara County District Attorney, and Los Angeles County District Attorney.
As part of the settlement:
- Conner Mitchell, Dudley Street Oyster Bar LLC, and Shark Bite Fish Co., LLC were ordered to pay: o $58,226 in civil penalties
- $45,000 in stayed civil penalties, payable if the injunction is violated
- $15,000 to CDFW’s Fish and Game Preservation Fund
- $1,773 in court costs and fees
- Taylor Grant was ordered to pay:
- $40,000 in civil penalties
- $10,000 to CDFW’s Fish and Game Preservation Fund
- Prohibited from commercial fishing in California
- Gilmer Grant, owner of the F/V Jamaica Day in 2020, was ordered to pay:
- $10,000 in civil penalties
- $5,000 to CDFW’s Fish and Game Preservation Fund
- Prohibited from owning or operating a commercial fishing vessel in California
- Cody Martin was ordered to pay:
- $8,000 in civil penalties
- $100,000 in stayed civil penalties, payable upon violation of the injunction
- $2,000 to CDFW’s Fish and Game Preservation Fund
- Prohibited from commercial fishing in California
The settlement also requires compliance oversight measures, public disclosure notices, and additional financial penalties should future violations occur.
District Attorney Savrnoch thanked Senior Deputy District Attorney Morgan Lucas, who handled the case on behalf of the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office, as well as those who worked on the case at CDFW, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. District Attorney Savrnoch also said: “Violating fishing regulations that are intended to preserve Marine Protected Areas threatens the environment and the fishing industry that depends on sustainable fish stocks in the future. I am proud that my office was able to work with CDFW to protect these valuable resources.”
Poachers suck, as do restauranteurs who buy their catch. Nice work by the DFW. I wish the penalties were greater across the board.
So I take it you also oppose the 41% funding cuts to NOAA which directly affects investigations like this?
NOAA?? This has zero to do with them. This is about local fishery regulations and law enforcement. Tell me the last time you saw NOAA out there enforcing fishing reg’s.
Basic, it is obvious you don’t read the articles and have problems analyzing the most elementary information, and have zero ability to do the most rudimentary Google search. NOAA extensively researches and actively manages fish harvesting sustainability. You are being asked if you support the massive NOAA budget cuts by the administration you voted for. Do you need us to draw it out for you with Crayolas?
BASIC – like GT nails you below, you don’t know how anything works and you definitely do not read the articles you come crying about. You would have to be insanely stupid to not understand how the NOAA affects species protection, JUST. LIKE. IT. SAYS. IN. THIS. ARTICLE.
From the article you failed to understand:
“This documentation is critical for CDFW and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries to effectively manage California fisheries and ensure long-term sustainability. ”
“Landing information is critical for CDFW and NOAA Fisheries to effectively manage California fisheries and ensure long-term sustainability.”
Further reading:
“The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a 41 percent budget cut to NOAA Fisheries, which includes the removal of effectively all protected species and habitat conservation functions. “Funding cuts for NOAA could not come at a worse time when you consider just how vulnerable American fisheries and fishermen are right now,” Jeff Watters, vice president of external affairs at NGO Ocean Conservancy, said in a release. “We are essentially putting blindfolds on and hoping for…” – https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/environment-sustainability/trump-proposes-41-percent-cut-to-noaa-fisheries-budget-transferring-esa-and-mmpa-responsibilities
“The axing of this project is just one example of what experts describe as a broad, long-term effort by the Trump administration to weaken NOAA. The long-standing scientific and regulatory agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce has historically been responsible for everything from forecasting the weather and monitoring the climate to managing fisheries and protecting marine mammals.” https://news.mongabay.com/2026/06/fisheries-and-climate-research-would-be-hit-hard-in-trumps-proposed-budget/
If you support the DFW (a State agency) and it’s efforts to stop poaching and protect our fisheries and you do not understand how the NOAA supports that and that your guy is cutting it’s budget almost in half, then you’re just not too smart, are you?
Way to spiral down there kid. Way off topic. This is a DFW deal. Enforcing LOCAL fisheries. Details matter. But hey, bust out all the NGO enviro info you want. They’re not biased at all! Spend all day at it. What else do you have to do?
Why can’t you answer the valid question I posed?
NOAA had zero role in this case. It’s DFW. They’re mentioned as pushing papers around “tracking” things, sure. You gotta get off your fake high horse.
Boolsheet, as usual.
BASIC – It’s clear you don’t understand the topic at hand. All you had to do was answer a simple question. Instead, you are digging in and saying things, repeatedly, that are absolutely false. Why?
I’ll give you a FOURTH chance – do you still support the 41% budget cuts to the NOAA that would impede the progress of state agencies being able to prevent poaching and protect fisheries?
“They’re mentioned as pushing papers around “tracking” things, sure.”
No wonder you hate government–you have no understanding of what it does or how or why.
Then why does the article mention the NOAA multiplr times to explain how these departments are interconnected?
You gonna run away again or man up amd answer?
How is talking about what the article says “way off topic”?
Day in and day out you present yourself as a model of what a human being should not be, and you have been doing so for years, going back at least to the time when you attacked Jerry Roberts–without a spleen and twice a cancer victim–for wearing a mask at the height of COVID because you absurdly assumed that someone broadcasting news in a lighted room with a camera is alone in the building, making clear your severe cognitive deficiency.
He used all caps “local” because he doesn’t understand what role NOAA plays in sustaining the resource.
So why is it mentioned twice in the article, genius.
If you spent any time whatsoever on the ocean off SoCal fishing you wouldn’t have to ask. IYKYK.
One’s fishing experience has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with what this particular is saying about how NOAA is related to the DFG efforts to eradicate poaching and support fishery preservation efforts.
Can I just ask, why are you so adamantly against the NOAA?
My question was about why NOAA was mentioned twice in the article, which has nothing to do with time spent fishing, troll dishonestly (as always) avoiding the question.
And I repeat: Day in and day out you present yourself as a model of what a human being should not be — and this is another blatant example.
Right wingers want all the benefits of government and none of the responsibilities, costs, restrictions, etc. It’s reflected in part in Wilhoit’s Law:
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Basic constantly rails against taxes, government, government workers, government worker salaries, etc. ad nauseam totally independent of the details of how much things cost, how hard they are to achieve, etc. He just knows that it’s costing more than it should, with no evidence or argument to that effect.
This is consistent with another observation I read recently, which is that one universal trait possessed by people on the right is immaturity.
Here is an example of the application of Wilhoit’s Law: https://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2022/07/wilhoits-law-and-education.html
Which is hypocritical, since BI Guy is paid by our taxes.
It’s sickening my money goes to fund a moron like this.
I just came across this video, which fits perfectly: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1316776410380527
I would like more information to evaluate this It sounds like the issue is buying fish from sports fishers who have recreational licenses and then using that catch in the restaurant. I realize, as a person who grew up fishing Southern California coast and island waters, that the potential here is that the sports fishers will violate their catch limits to make money from the buyers but I know that a lot of fish caught by these folks are not actually consumed, unfortunately. Couldn’t we have some process whereby sports fishers could go to a site and have their catch processed fairly? Make it a bit drawn out and possibly set limits on frequency to discourage abuse.