Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027-14/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 

DANA HOWEY, in personam, et al., 

 Counter-Claimants, 

 v. 

KANAWAY SEAFOODS, INC., et al., 

 Counter-Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO AMEND COUNTERCLAIMS 

 Before the Court is a Motion to Amend Counterclaims to Add Breach of Contract 

Claim for Second Liberty Packing Promissory Note (“Motion”) filed by Defendants Pacific 

Predator, Bryan Howey, Dana Howey, and Alaska Wild Exports LLC.1 Plaintiffs Kanaway 

Seafoods, Inc., doing business as Alaska General Seafoods (“AGS”), and Liberty Packing LLC 

filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion,2 to which Defendants did not reply. Because 

Defendants have not shown good cause for seeking the proposed amendment of their 

Counter-Complaint over a year after the amended pleadings deadline, the Court recommends 

that the Motion be DENIED.3

1

 Docket 204. 

2

 Docket 210. 

3

 Because denial of the Motion would be dispositive of Defendants’ proposed counterclaim, the Court 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 216 Filed 11/04/24 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 re Mtn to Amend Counterclaims 

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR 

2 

I. BACKGROUND

In February 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in rem and in personam against Defendants, 

alleging that Defendants failed to comply with the terms of three loans Defendants had with 

Plaintiffs.4 In September 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.5 In October 2022, 

Defendants filed an Answer and Counter-Complaint in which they asserted numerous 

counterclaims arising generally out of Plaintiffs’ alleged actions in connection with the three 

loans leading up to this lawsuit.6

In March 2023, after receiving the parties’ Scheduling and Planning Conference Report, 

the Court issued a Scheduling and Planning Order setting various deadlines in the case.7 

Among these deadlines were: (1) a July 3, 2023, deadline for the parties to file any motions to 

amend pleadings; (2) a December 18, 2023, deadline for the parties to complete fact discovery; 

and (3) a January 19, 2024, deadline for the parties to file any discovery motions.8 The Court 

informed the parties that these deadlines could be modified “only for good cause shown and 

with the consent of the Court.”9 The parties later filed and the Court granted a stipulated 

motion to extend the fact discovery deadline by two days to ensure that any final depositions 

could be taken before that deadline.10 No other requests regarding the deadlines in the 

Scheduling and Planning Order were made before those deadlines expired. 

On March 7, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for an extension of time to complete 

discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).11 In that motion, Defendants 

submits this report and recommendation to the District Court instead of ruling on the Motion. See 

Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that habeas petitioner’s motion to stay 

proceedings was dispositive of a new claim petitioner sought to eventually add to his petition, 

explaining that inquiry turned on “whether the denial of the motion effectively dispose[d] of a claim 

or defense or preclude[d] the ultimate relief sought” (citing S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 

1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013))); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)–(B).

4

 Docket 1. 

5

 Docket 64. 

6

 Docket 75. 

7

 Docket 105. 

8

Id. at 4, 7–8. 

9

Id. at 2. 

10 Docket 126 at 2; Docket 127. 

11 Docket 154. 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 216 Filed 11/04/24 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 re Mtn to Amend Counterclaims 

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR 

3 

asked the Court to allow additional discovery pertaining to a “newly discovered” December 

2019 promissory note between Liberty Packing and the Howeys.12 Defendants faulted 

Plaintiffs for not producing this “critically important” note, even though it later became clear 

that Defendants had possessed a copy of the note since before the litigation began and had 

even produced it to Plaintiffs in July 2023.13 

On April 18, 2024, the Court denied Defendants’ discovery motion, finding that 

Defendants “ha[d] not diligently conducted discovery or shown good cause for their failure to 

do so[.]”14 The Court reasoned as follows. First, Defendants “were or should have been aware 

of the December 2019 promissory note well before the fact discovery cutoff.”15 Second, 

Defendants had waited more than two months after the fact discovery cutoff to move to 

reopen that deadline, even though they had evidently been aware of the December 2019 

promissory note before the deadline’s passage.16 Defendants’ attempts to justify this delay 

revealed that they had intentionally failed to communicate with Plaintiffs and ignored the 

Court’s ordered deadlines “in an attempt to gain a strategic advantage.”17 The Court concluded 

that these actions showed a lack of diligence and that it would be inappropriate to “reward 

Defendants’ delays in pursuing discovery.”18 

On June 27, 2024, Defendants filed a motion seeking an order requiring Plaintiffs to 

produce materials responsive to several new discovery requests, including certain materials 

pertaining to the December 2019 promissory note.19 In justifying their need for additional 

discovery, Defendants reiterated the argument that Plaintiffs had withheld the December 2019 

promissory note in discovery.20

On August 16, 2024, the Court denied this second discovery motion, construing it as a 

12 Id. at 2. 

13 Docket 158 at 4–5; Docket 175 at 8. 

14 Docket 175 at 1. 

15 Id. at 11. 

16 Id. at 12. 

17 Id. at 12–13. 

18 Id. at 13. 

19 Docket 185 at 2. 

20 Id. at 15–17. 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 216 Filed 11/04/24 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 re Mtn to Amend Counterclaims 

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR 

4 

motion to reopen discovery requiring a showing of good cause pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 16(b).21 In concluding that the balance of relevant factors weighed against 

reopening discovery, the Court again found that Defendants had not diligently pursued 

discovery.22 The Court explained that Defendants “were or should have been aware of [the 

December 2019 promissory note] well before the fact discovery deadline, failed to timely 

conduct any discovery concerning the document before discovery closed, and then waited 

more than two months to move to reopen this deadline.”23 Defendants then filed a motion 

for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying their second discovery motion,24 which the 

Court likewise denied.25

 On August 30, 2024, Defendants filed the present Motion.26 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a court must issue a scheduling order 

that limits “the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file 

motions.”27 Once established, the “schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 

the judge’s consent.”28 Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of 

the party seeking the amendment.”29 “Good cause may be found to exist where the moving 

party shows that it diligently assisted the court with creating a workable scheduling order, that 

it [was] unable to comply with the scheduling order’s deadlines due to matters that could not 

have reasonably been foreseen at the time of the issuance of the scheduling order, and that it 

was diligent in seeking an amendment once it became apparent that the party could not comply 

21 Docket 192 at 1, 7. 

22 Id. at 11–12. 

23 Id. at 12. 

24 Docket 196. 

25 Docket 212. 

26 Docket 204. 

27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). 

28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 

1992). 

29 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 216 Filed 11/04/24 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 re Mtn to Amend Counterclaims 

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR 

5 

with the scheduling order.”30 “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”31

When a party moves to amend its pleading after the scheduling order’s deadline for 

amended pleadings has expired, the court evaluates the motion under Rule 16(b)’s good cause 

standard.32 The moving party cannot “appeal to the liberal amendment procedures afforded 

by Rule 15; [the] tardy motion [must] satisfy the more stringent ‘good cause’ showing required 

under Rule 16.”33 Only if good cause is found will the court then evaluate whether the 

proposed amendment is proper under Rule 15’s liberal standard.34

III. DISCUSSION 

Defendants seek to amend their Counter-Complaint by adding a breach of contract 

counterclaim “for the failure of Liberty Packing to provide the Howeys their bargained-for 

consideration ($67,397.22) in exchange for executing the [December 2019 promissory note].”35 

Defendants appear to contend that their need to raise this proposed counterclaim was 

prompted by certain adverse rulings regarding that note.36 Defendants further suggest that if 

they are not permitted to add this counterclaim, they could be found liable to both AGS and 

Liberty Packing for the amount specified in the note plus interest; Defendants argue that such 

an outcome would be prejudicial because it would make them liable for far more than what 

they might owe.37 

In response, Plaintiffs urge the Court to deny leave to amend for three reasons. First, 

Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants unduly delayed filing the Motion, as evidenced by 

Defendants’ possession of the December 2019 promissory note—the document giving rise to 

30 Kuschner v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 684, 687 (E.D. Cal. 2009). 

31 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

32 Id. at 608. 

33 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 952 (9th Cir. 2006). 

34 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608. 

35 Docket 204 at 2. 

36 Defendants suggest that the Court has established the meaning of the December 2019 promissory 

note or determined that the note “is unrelated to the AGS open account/maritime lien claim as a 

matter of law.” Docket 204 at 4, 6. Defendants do not identify the specific rulings they refer to, and 

the Court is unaware of any rulings in this litigation with such effect. 

37 Id. at 6. 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 216 Filed 11/04/24 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 re Mtn to Amend Counterclaims 

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR 

6 

the proposed new counterclaim—since before this litigation.38 Second, Plaintiffs contend that 

allowing Defendants to bring the requested new counterclaim at this stage in the litigation 

would prejudice Plaintiffs, as it would either “deprive Plaintiffs the opportunity to test this new 

claim through the usual means of discovery or motion practice,” or involve a new round of 

costly and time-consuming discovery and motions.39 And third, Plaintiffs argue that the 

Defendants’ proposed new counterclaim is not really a counterclaim at all, as its “true purpose” 

is “to allow Defendants to argue that th[e] [December 2019] note was a part of the ongoing 

transaction between the parties, and has an effect on the AGS-Howey debt.”40 Plaintiffs 

submit that the proposed new counterclaim is instead a “partial defense to the AGS debt claim, 

or a factor to reduce the amount due.”41

The Court finds that Defendants have failed to show good cause under Rule 16(b) to 

justify their late request to add the proposed breach of contract claim to their CounterComplaint. The Court previously applied the same good cause standard in denying 

Defendants’ requests to reopen discovery, and the same reasons that supported those denials 

apply equally here. In finding that Defendants had not shown good cause to reopen discovery 

several months after the fact discovery deadline expired, the Court explained that Defendants 

had not diligently pursued discovery, particularly discovery pertaining to the December 2019 

promissory note.42 The Court rejected Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs were responsible 

for Defendants’ delays in pursuing discovery, relying on the undisputed fact that Defendants 

had possessed the December 2019 note since before this litigation began and on Defendants’ 

own admission that they had strategically waited to raise any issue regarding the disclosure of 

that document with Plaintiffs or with the Court.43

These considerations similarly preclude a finding of diligence as to Defendants’ 

untimely request to add to their Counter-Complaint a breach of contract claim involving the 

38 Docket 210 at 3. 

39 Id. at 3–4. 

40 Id. at 5. 

41 Id.

42 Docket 175 at 10–13; Docket 192 at 9–12. 

43 Docket 175 at 11–13; Docket 192 at 10. 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 216 Filed 11/04/24 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 re Mtn to Amend Counterclaims 

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR 

7 

December 2019 promissory note. Defendants filed the Motion on August 30, 2024: over a 

year past the amended pleadings deadline, over eight months past the fact discovery deadline, 

and over six months past the dispositive motions deadline.44 Even if the Court were to assume 

that Defendants’ arguments as to the importance of their proposed counterclaim had merit, 

these arguments have little to no bearing on the good cause issue and would fail to overcome 

Defendants’ lack of diligence in seeking amendment.45 Furthermore, although prejudice to 

Plaintiffs is not required under Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard, it can and does here “suppl[y] 

an additional reason for denying the motion.”46

The Court thus finds that Defendants have not shown good cause to amend their 

Counter-Complaint as proposed. Because a finding of good cause is a threshold requirement 

to amend a pleading beyond the time permitted in a scheduling order, the Court need not 

address the parties’ remaining arguments for purposes of recommending a disposition of the 

Motion.47 Nevertheless, the Court concurs with Plaintiffs that even without the proposed 

breach of contract counterclaim, Defendants may use the December 2019 promissory note in 

44 Docket 105 at 7–8; Docket 127. 

45 See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (“If [the moving] party was not diligent, the [good cause] inquiry should 

end.”); see also Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC, 88 F.4th 1268, 1279 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that district 

court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiffs were not diligent in moving to amend 

complaint to incorporate new theory of liability where plaintiffs had possessed “the ‘key documents’ 

forming the basis of their new theory of fraud in January 2020 yet ‘failed to account for the five months’ 

between receiving the documents and filing their motion to amend in June 2020”); Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of 

Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that even under the liberal 

Rule 15 standard “late amendments to assert new theories are not reviewed favorably when the facts 

and the theory have been known to the party seeking amendment since the inception of the cause of 

action”). 

46 Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1295 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609); see 

also id. (“A need to reopen discovery and therefore delay the proceedings supports a district court's 

finding of prejudice from a delayed motion to amend the complaint.” (quoting Lockheed Martin Corp. v. 

Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999))). 

47 Because Defendants suggested that they might file a separate breach of contract action in state court 

if the Motion were denied, Docket 204 at 6, Plaintiffs asked the Court to “clarify” that Defendants’ 

breach of contract claim “arises from the same operative nucleus of facts as the existing claims and 

therefore the claim-splitting rule applies,” Docket 210 at 9. As an actual claim-splitting issue does not 

currently exist and would not be litigated in federal court even if it did, the Court will not declare the 

parties’ rights in a hypothetical second action brought in state court. See Thomas v. Anchorage Equal 

Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[Federal courts’] role is neither to issue advisory 

opinions nor to declare rights in hypothetical cases, but to adjudicate live cases or controversies 

consistent with the powers granted the judiciary in Article III of the Constitution.”). 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 216 Filed 11/04/24 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 re Mtn to Amend Counterclaims 

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR 

8 

defending against the AGS debt claim or in attempting to establish the amount owed for that 

claim. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Defendants have not shown good cause to amend their Counter-Complaint over a year 

after the deadline for amended pleadings in this case. Therefore, the Court recommends that 

Defendants’ Motion to Amend Counterclaims to Add Breach of Contract Claim for Second 

Liberty Packing Promissory Note at Docket 204 be DENIED. 

DATED this 4th day of November, 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.48 

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

order.49 

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

days.50 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 

48 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 

49 Id. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

50 Id. 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 216 Filed 11/04/24 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 re Mtn to Amend Counterclaims 

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR 

9 

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

judgment.51 

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

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 216 Filed 11/04/24 Page 9 of 9