Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027-7/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

KANAWAY SEAFOODS, INC., doing 

business as ALASKA GENERAL 

SEAFOODS, a Delaware corporation,

and LIBERTY PACKING LLC, a 

Washington Limited Liability 

Company,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

PACIFIC PREDATOR, AK 

Registration No. AK3565AN, its 

Engines, Machinery, Appurtenances, 

etc., In Rem, and BRIAN HOWEY and 

DANA HOWEY, Alaska Wild Exports 

LLC, in personam, 

vs.

Defendants.

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

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 

Docket 91. The Motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon.

Plaintiffs, responded in opposition at Docket 98. Defendants replied at Docket 104. 

Judge Reardon issued his Findings and Recommendations at Docket 115, in which he 

recommended that the motion be denied. Defendants filed objections to the Findings and 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 143 Filed 02/09/24 Page 1 of 3
Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., et al., v. Pacific Predator, et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation Page 2 

Recommendations at Dockets 116. Plaintiffs responded to Defendants’ objections at 

Docket 118. 

The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That 

statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”1

 A court is to “make a de 

novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed 

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”2

 But as to those topics on which 

no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a 

district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves 

accept as correct.”3

 

Defendants raised two objections for the Court to review. First, Defendants 

argue there is no dispute in the balance of the ASG Note. Additionally, Defendants argue 

there is no dispute concerning the interpretation of the language in the Liberty Note. The 

Court has reviewed the Amended Complaint; the Motion for Summary Judgment; 

Plaintiffs’ response to the Motion for Summary Judgement; Defendants’ reply; the exhibits 

provided by both parties; and Defendants’ objections. Further, the Court independently 

1

 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 2

 Id.

3

 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. 

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court 

review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when 

neither party objects to those findings.”). 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 143 Filed 02/09/24 Page 2 of 3
Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., et al., v. Pacific Predator, et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation Page 3 

evaluated the factual and legal arguments raised in Defendants’ objections. Upon its 

review, the Court finds Defendants’ objections lack merit.4

The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion for 

Summary Judgement. The Court has reviewed the Findings and Recommendations and 

agrees with the analyses. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Findings and 

Recommendations at Dockets 115, and IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary 

Judgement at Docket 91 is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.

 /s/ Joshua M. Kindred 

JOSHUA M. KINDRED 

United States District Judge 

4

 United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (articulating that “the district 

court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection.”).

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 143 Filed 02/09/24 Page 3 of 3