Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 46:1156 Administrative Procedure Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

 

 

 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA 

KANAWAY SEAFOODS, INC., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PACIFIC PREDATOR, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT RE WRONGFUL ARREST COUNTERCLAIM 

 Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment re Defendants’ Wrongful Arrest 

Counterclaim filed by Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., doing business 

as Alaska General Seafoods (“AGS”), and Liberty Packing LLC (“Liberty”).1 

Defendants/Counterplaintiffs Pacific Predator (“the Vessel”), Bryan Howey, Dana Howey, 

and Alaska Wild Exports LLC (“AWE”) did not file a response to the Motion. Plaintiffs filed 

a notice of Defendants’ non-opposition.2 Defendants have offered no evidence creating a 

genuine issue of fact that AGS lacked a bona fide claim to a maritime lien on the Vessel or that 

AGS pursued the Vessel’s arrest in bad faith, with malice, or with gross negligence. In addition, 

the Court has consistently found that AGS has met its burden to show that it had a valid 

maritime lien when it sought a warrant for the Vessel’s arrest. Because Defendants’ wrongful 

arrest counterclaim cannot be sustained, the Court recommends that the Motion be 

GRANTED and that First Cause of Action in Defendants’ Countercomplaint DISMISSED.

// 

// 

// 

1

 Docket 147. For the sake of simplicity, the Court will refer to these parties as “Plaintiffs.” 

2

 Docket 177. The Court will refer to these parties as “Defendants.” 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 194 Filed 08/16/24 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

R&R on MSJ re Wrongful Arrest Counterclaim

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR

2

I. BACKGROUND3

Starting in 2019, Defendants entered into a series of agreements with Plaintiffs. First, 

on April 17, 2019, the Howeys entered into a loan and security agreement with Liberty (“Liberty 

Loan Agreement”); the parties documented the $800,000 loan by a promissory note (“Liberty 

Note”) reciting the loan’s terms.4 In exchange for this loan, the Howeys agreed to enter into a 

fishing agreement to deliver and sell seafood products to AGS for a fixed period.5 Second, on 

June 30, 2019, Bryan Howey entered into a promissory note with AGS (“AGS Note”) for a 

loan from AGS to Howey in the amount of $23,949.32.6 And third, between 2019 and 2021, 

AGS loaned or advanced Bryan Howey and the Vessel—a 58-foot seiner that the Howeys used 

to commercially fish Alaskan waters—additional funds that were used to pay various expenses 

associated with Defendants’ fishing operations.7 These sums were added to an “open account” 

with AGS that was used to track ongoing debits and credits, including credits for Defendants’ 

fish deliveries.8

On February 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in rem and in personam against 

Defendants, alleging that Defendants had failed to pay amounts loaned under the Liberty Note, 

the AGS Note, and the AGS open account.9 Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint asserted several 

claims, including a claim by AGS for foreclosure of maritime lien rights.10 Plaintiffs alleged 

that AGS had a maritime lien arising from loaning Defendants, pursuant to the AGS Note and 

open account, “funds to be used for the maintenance and operation of the [V]essel as 

necessaries.”11

3

 The Court will not repeat additional background material set forth in previous Reports and 

Recommendations that is not relevant to the present Motion. See, e.g., Docket 115; Docket 176; Docket 

181. 

4

 Docket 145-1; Docket 145-2. 

5

 Docket 145-1 at 1; Docket 172-1. 

6

 Docket 64-3. 

7

 Docket 64 at 6–7, ¶ 3.13; Docket 75 at 9–10, ¶ 26. 

8

 Docket 64-4; Docket 75 at 9, ¶ 26. 

9

 Docket 1. 

10 Id. at 8–9, ¶¶ 4.6–4.7. 

11 Id.

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 194 Filed 08/16/24 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

R&R on MSJ re Wrongful Arrest Counterclaim

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR

3

On February 28, 2022, Plaintiffs moved for an order authorizing the issuance of a 

warrant for the Vessel’s arrest.12 On review of Plaintiffs’ complaint and the attached exhibits, 

the Court granted this motion.13 The U.S. Marshals Service arrested the Vessel on April 18, 

2022.14 Defendants then moved for a hearing to vacate the arrest and for Plaintiffs to present 

evidence justifying the arrest, including evidence supporting the existence of a maritime lien.15 

The Court granted the motion and held a hearing on May 3, 2022.16 After the hearing, the 

parties filed briefing and Plaintiffs submitted evidence pertaining to the arrest.17 

On July 29, 2022, the Court issued an order denying Defendants’ request to vacate the 

arrest.18 The Court found that AGS had met its burden of showing a “fair or reasonable 

probability that the conditions for foreclosure against a maritime lien . . . exist[ed].”19 The 

Court explained that AGS had submitted evidence showing that it had loaned funds to 

Defendants that were used as necessaries for the Vessel, and that at least some of these loans 

remained unpaid.20 Although Defendants objected to the veracity of some of this evidence, 

the Court noted that these objections were “not relevant to the limited purposes of [the 

motion]” because AGS had already established probable cause that it had a maritime lien on 

the Vessel.21

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in which AGS reasserted 

its maritime lien foreclosure claim against Defendants.22 Defendants answered the Amended 

Complaint and raised numerous counterclaims, including a counterclaim for wrongful arrest of 

12 Docket 3; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. C(3).

13 Docket 7. 

14 Docket 10; Docket 11. 

15 Docket 15; see also Docket 16; Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. E(4)(f) (“Whenever property is arrested or 

attached, any person claiming an interest in it shall be entitled to a prompt hearing at which the plaintiff 

shall be required to show why the arrest or attachment should not be vacated or other relief granted 

consistent with these rules.”). 

16 Docket 21; Docket 28; Docket 49. 

17 Docket 29; Docket 30; Docket 31; Docket 32; Docket 33; Docket 40; Docket 41; Docket 42; Docket 

43; Docket 47. 

18 Docket 52. 

19 Id. at 9. 

20 Id. at 10–12. 

21 Id. at 12. 

22 Docket 64 at 8–9, ¶¶ 4.6–4.7. 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 194 Filed 08/16/24 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

R&R on MSJ re Wrongful Arrest Counterclaim

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR

4

the Vessel.23 In connection with their wrongful arrest counterclaim, Defendants allege that 

Plaintiffs “conspired to transfer funds between themselves in order to create the appearance 

that there was a balance due from [Defendants] on the AGS Open Account,” so that Plaintiffs 

could assert a maritime lien and arrest the Vessel.24

In the present Motion, Plaintiffs seek summary judgment solely on Defendants’ 

wrongful arrest counterclaim.25

II. LEGAL STANDARDS 

 Summary judgment is appropriate when a “movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 26 A 

fact is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the case under the governing law.27 A 

dispute is “genuine” as to a material fact if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable 

factfinder to decide in favor of the nonmoving party.28 In determining whether a genuine 

dispute of material fact exists, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of that party.29

The party moving for summary judgment bears the ultimate burden of persuasion and 

the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.30 Where 

the nonmoving party will have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only point 

out “that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.”31 To prevent 

summary judgment in these circumstances, the nonmoving party “must produce evidence to 

support its claim or defense.”32 It is not the task of the court to “scour the record in search of 

23 Docket 75 at 20–23, ¶¶ 73–84. 

24 Id. at 20–22, ¶¶ 74–81. 

25 Docket 147. 

26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

27 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986) (“Only disputes over facts that might affect 

the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary 

judgment.”). 

28 Id. at 248. 

29 See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587–88 (1986); E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy 

Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009). 

30 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 

31 Id. at 325. 

32 Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. V. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 194 Filed 08/16/24 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

R&R on MSJ re Wrongful Arrest Counterclaim

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR

5

a genuine issue of triable fact.”33 Rather, the nonmoving party must “identify with reasonable 

particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment.”34 “If the nonmoving party fails 

to produce enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party wins 

the motion for summary judgment.”35

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Defendants’ wrongful 

arrest counterclaim because Defendants cannot prove either of the two necessary elements of 

wrongful arrest: (1) that AGS lacked a bona fide maritime lien claim and (2) that the arrest was 

due to bad faith, malice, or gross negligence.36 The Court agrees. 

 Title 46, United States Code, Section 31342(a) confers upon “a person providing 

necessaries to a vessel on the order of the owner or a person authorized by the owner” a 

maritime lien on the vessel, and permits that person to “bring a civil action in rem to enforce 

the lien.”37 “In general, maritime liens, including necessaries liens, exist to keep ships moving 

in commerce, while preventing them from sailing away from the debts they incur.”38 A vessel 

may be arrested to enforce a maritime lien. Upon such an arrest, the owner of the vessel is 

entitled to a hearing at which the arresting party must present evidence showing probable cause 

to believe that a maritime lien exists.39 “The probable cause hearing is not intended to 

definitively resolve the dispute between the parties, but rather to make a preliminary 

33 Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 

Richards v. Combined Ins., 55 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1995)). 

34 Id. (quoting Richards, 55 F.3d at 251). 

35 Nissan Fire & Marine Ins., 210 F.3d at 1102. 

36 Docket 147 at 8–9. In the alternative, Plaintiffs argue that summary judgment is appropriate because 

(1) the law of the case precludes Defendants’ wrongful arrest counterclaim and (2) Liberty did not 

arrest the Vessel and thus cannot be liable for wrongful arrest. Id. at 8–10. 

37 See also Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V JEANINE KATHLEEN, 305 F.3d 913, 919 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(“The theoretical basis for the maritime lien rests on the legal fiction that the ship itself caused the loss 

and may be called into court to make good. Maritime liens arise for the unpaid provision of 

necessaries . . . as well as in other circumstances.”). 

38 Id. 

39 See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. C(3), E(4)(f); Del Mar Seafoods Inc. v. Cohen, No. C 07-02952-WHA, 2007 

WL 2385114, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2007). 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 194 Filed 08/16/24 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

R&R on MSJ re Wrongful Arrest Counterclaim

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR

6

determination of whether there were reasonable grounds for issuing the arrest warrant.”40

To prove a claim for wrongful arrest of a vessel, the vessel owner must establish two 

elements: (1) the lack of a bona fide claim to a maritime lien on the vessel and (2) bad faith, 

malice, or gross negligence on the part of the arresting party.41 A lien holder does not act in 

bad faith when there is “a bona fide dispute over the validity of [the] lien” and “the parties 

could have legitimately and honestly believed that the lien would stand up.”42

Throughout the entirety of this case, the Court and the District Court have rejected 

Defendants’ contentions that AGS did not have a valid maritime lien when it sought the 

Vessel’s arrest.43 First, in its order denying Defendants’ motion to vacate the Vessel’s arrest, 

the Court determined that Plaintiffs had met their burden of showing a reasonable probability 

that AGS had a maritime lien based on AGS’s advancement of necessaries and Defendants’ 

failure to satisfy at least some of those debts.44 The Court recognized Defendants’ objections 

to AGS’s calculations of the outstanding debts but concluded that these objections did not 

affect the Court’s probable cause determination.45 Second, in a subsequent Report and 

Recommendation to deny two of Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Court concluded that 

there was “no basis to disturb [its] prior findings” regarding the existence of a maritime lien 

40 Benicia Harbor Corp. v. M/V IDA LOUISE, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2023 WL 7092230, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 

2023). 

41 Equatorial Marine Fuel Mgmt. Servs. Pte Ltd. v. Berhad, 464 F. App’x 647, 648 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 

Stevens v. F/V Bonnie Doon, 655 F.2d 206, 209 (9th Cir. 1981)); Comar Marine, Corp. v. Raider Marine 

Logistics, L.L.C., 792 F.3d 564, 574–75 (5th Cir. 2015). 

42 Cardinal Shipping Corp. v. M/S Seisho Maru, 744 F.2d 461, 475 (5th Cir. 1984); see also Poppy Tex & 

Designs, Inc. v. Cont’l Logistic Serv., Inc., No. CV 20-3185-MWF (RAOx), 2021 WL 935514, at *2 (C.D. 

Cal. Jan. 12, 2021) (“A defendant’s ‘honest belief that it had a maritime lien over [a vessel or cargo] 

does not amount to bad faith, malice, or gross negligence, even if that belief turns out to be incorrect.’” 

(quoting Chemoil Corp. v. M/V DARYA VISHNU, No. C13-5494 RBL, 2013 WL 6328829, at *3 (W.D. 

Wash. Dec. 5, 2013))). 

43 Docket 52 at 9–12; Docket 87 at 12–13; Docket 110 at 3; Docket 115 at 8–9; Docket 143. 

44 Docket 52 at 9–12. 

45 Id. at 12; see also Del Mar Seafoods, 2007 WL 2385114, at *3 (“The purpose of [Supplemental Admiralty] 

Rule E(4)(f) . . . is not to resolve [ ] factual disputes, but rather to assess whether plaintiff’s showing [of 

entitlement to a maritime lien] rises to the level of probable cause.”); SMS Yacht Maintenance v. One 

Nautique 210 Pleasure Vessel, No. 12-CV-2038-IEG NLS, 2012 WL 6737197, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 

2012) (“On [a motion to vacate arrest], Plaintiff need only show entitlement to a maritime lien on the 

Vessel and need not resolve disputed facts as to its scope.”). 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 194 Filed 08/16/24 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

R&R on MSJ re Wrongful Arrest Counterclaim

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR

7

held by AGS against the Vessel.46 In its order on this Report and Recommendation, the 

District Court “agree[d] that maritime jurisdiction is proper over AGS’s claims because AGS’s 

funds were advanced and used for necessaries for the [Vessel].”47 And third, in a Report and 

Recommendation to deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this case, the Court 

declined to reconsider its and the District Court’s prior rulings with respect to the maritime 

lien issue because Defendants had failed to offer any relevant new evidence or arguments.48 

The District Court adopted this Report and Recommendation in full.49

In light of these rulings and Defendants’ failure to present evidence that creates a 

genuine issue of fact as to AGS’s entitlement to a maritime lien or as to AGS’s culpability, 

Defendants’ wrongful arrest counterclaim is inviable. The fact that the Court has consistently 

upheld AGS’s maritime lien on the Vessel is, at minimum, strong evidence of a bona fide claim 

to this lien.50 Defendants have offered no evidence that could be construed as invalidating 

AGS’s claim to a maritime lien. Defendants have similarly offered no evidence that would 

allow a reasonable factfinder to decide that AGS pursued the Vessel’s arrest in bad faith, with 

malice, or with gross negligence. There is thus no basis to conclude that AGS lacked a bona 

fide claim to a lien on the Vessel or that AGS improperly pursued the Vessel’s arrest.51 

46 Docket 87 at 12–13 (“In its Order Denying Motion to Vacate Arrest and Setting Bond, this Court 

previously analyzed the standards and elements required to determine that Plaintiffs adequately showed 

a fair or reasonable probability that it has a maritime lien against the Vessel and that, in accordance 

with the Rule of Advances, necessaries were advanced. There is no basis to disturb the Court’s prior 

findings on this issue, nor its conclusion that the money advanced by AGS to Defendants was for the 

purpose of acquiring necessaries for the successful operation of the Vessel.” (footnote omitted)). 

47 Docket 110 at 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

48 Docket 115 at 8–9. 

49 Docket 143. 

50 Cf. Indus. Maritime Carriers, LLC v. Dantzler, Inc., 611 F. App’x 600, 607 (11th Cir. 2015) (observing 

that even in cases where “it turns out that [the arresting party] had the losing legal argument in the 

underlying dispute leading to the attachment,” courts have not found the arresting party liable purely 

by virtue of the unlawful attachment (citing Cent. Oil Co. v. M/V Lamma-Forest, 821 F.2d 48, 51 (1st 

Cir. 1987); Ocean Ship Supply, Lt. v. MV Leah, 729 F.2d 971, 974 (4th Cir. 1984))); Heck v. Humphrey, 552 

U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994) (holding that a state prisoner may not seek damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

where prisoner’s conviction or sentence has not already been invalidated and where judgment in 

prisoner’s favor “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence”). 

51 As the Court explained in its order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary 

judgment on certain of Defendants’ other counterclaims, Defendants filed a declaration by Melissa 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 194 Filed 08/16/24 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

R&R on MSJ re Wrongful Arrest Counterclaim

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR

8

Accordingly, the Court concludes that summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor is appropriate. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The Court finds that Defendants have failed to show that any genuine dispute of 

material fact exists as to whether AGS had a bona fide maritime lien claim against the Vessel, 

or as to whether the Vessel’s arrest was due to bad faith, malice, or gross negligence. Plaintiffs 

are therefore entitled to summary judgment on Defendants’ wrongful arrest counterclaim. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment re 

Defendants’ Wrongful Arrest Counterclaim at Docket 147 be GRANTED and that the First 

Cause of Action in Defendants’ Countercomplaint at Docket 75 be DISMISSED. 

DATED this 16th day of August, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska. 

s/ Kyle F. Reardon

KYLE F. REARDON 

United States Magistrate Judge 

District of Alaska 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court may designate a magistrate judge to hear 

and determine matters pending before the Court. For dispositive matters, a magistrate judge 

reports findings of fact and provides recommendations to the presiding district court judge.52 

Curran that is untimely for purposes of any of the pending motions for summary judgment in this case. 

See Docket 193 at 19–20; see also Docket 179. Nonetheless, even if the Court were to consider the 

Curran declaration as evidence with respect to the present Motion, Curran’s testimony does not create 

a genuine dispute of material fact as to either element of Defendants’ wrongful arrest counterclaim. 

The most relevant portion of Curran’s declaration is her testimony that the August 31, 2019, transfer 

from AGS to Liberty was an “inaccurate or inappropriate recording of financial data” given that the 

transfer was dated a month before that year’s due date for the Howeys’ Liberty loan payment. Docket 

179 at 12, ¶¶ 41–44. Curran explains that on another occasion, she “witnessed . . . Brad Wilkins 

change[] an entry in an account or report in order to make the books look more favorable.” Docket 

179 at 12–13, ¶ 45. But this testimony and all justifiable inferences drawn from it do not create a 

genuine dispute of material fact as to whether AGS had a bona fide maritime lien when it sought the 

Vessel’s arrest or as to whether AGS sought the arrest in bad faith, with malice, or with gross 

negligence. 

52 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 194 Filed 08/16/24 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

R&R on MSJ re Wrongful Arrest Counterclaim

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR

9

A district court judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s 

order.53 

A party may file written objections to the magistrate judge’s order within 14 fourteen 

days.54 Objections and responses are limited to five (5) pages in length and should not merely 

reargue positions previously presented. Rather, objections and responses should specifically 

identify the findings or recommendations objected to, the basis of the objection, and any legal 

authority in support. Reports and recommendations are not appealable orders. Any notice of 

appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the district court’s 

judgment.55 

53 Id. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

54 Id. 

55 See Hilliard v. Kincheloe, 796 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 194 Filed 08/16/24 Page 9 of 9