Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027-15/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., et 

al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PACIFIC PREDATOR, et al., 

Defendants. 

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

ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Before the Court at Docket 204 is a Motion to Amend Counterclaims to Add 

Breach of Contract Claim for Second Liberty Packing Promissory Note filed by 

Defendants Bryan Howey, Dana Howey, and Alaska Wild Exports, LLC. Plaintiffs 

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., doing business as Alaska General Seafoods, and Liberty 

Packing, LLC responded in opposition at Docket 210. The motion was referred to 

the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 216, Judge Reardon

issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the 

motion be denied. Defendants filed objections to the Report and Recommendation 

at Docket 217, to which Plaintiffs replied at Docket 218. 

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 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 219 Filed 12/03/24 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR, Kanaway Seafoods et al. v. Pacific Predator et al.

Order re Report and Recommendation 

Page 2 of 3 

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 

However, § 636(b)(1) does not “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.”3

The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion to 

Amend Counterclaims. In their objections, Defendants state that they “do not 

appeal” from the Report insofar as it recommended the denial of Defendants’ 

motion to amend their counterclaims. They do assert a concern “that the Court 

may bar questioning regarding corporate practices” with respect to the Second LP 

Promissory Note” and bar questioning as to “why Plaintiffs intentionally excluded 

the note from its complaint.” Those issues are not before the Court at this time. 

The Court intends by separate order to schedule a trial setting conference, and 

thereafter, will issue a deadline for the parties to file motions in limine that can 

address anticipated evidentiary issues at trial. 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with 

its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and 

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2 Id.

3 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 219 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR, Kanaway Seafoods et al. v. Pacific Predator et al.

Order re Report and Recommendation 

Page 3 of 3 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Counterclaims at Docket 204 is 

DENIED. Further, Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees incurred in preparing their 

response to the objections is DENIED. 

DATED this 3rd day of December 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska. 

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 219 Filed 12/03/24 Page 3 of 3