Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027-8/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-JMK-KFR 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE LIBERTY LOAN DEFAULT 

 

 Before the Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re Liberty Loan 

Default filed by Plaintiff Liberty Packing LLC (“Liberty”).1 Defendants Pacific 

Predator, Bryan Howey, Dana Howey, and Alaska Wild Exports LLC (“AWE”) filed a 

response in partial opposition to the Motion,2 to which Liberty filed a reply.3 The 

Court finds that there is no dispute of material fact that the Howeys defaulted on 

their long-term loan with Liberty because they failed to make any of their annual 

loan payments in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Liberty is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law on its loan default claim. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Motion 

be GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On April 17, 2019, the Howeys entered into a loan and security agreement 

(“Loan Agreement”) with Liberty; the parties documented the loan by a promissory 

note (“Note”) reciting the loan’s terms.4 Under the Loan Agreement, Liberty loaned 

1

 Doc. 144. 

2

 Doc. 167. 

3

 Doc. 173. 

4

 Doc. 145 at 2, ¶ 2. This agreement was one of several involving the Howeys that are 

involved in this case. Because only this first agreement is relevant to the present Motion, 

the Court does not address the other agreements at this time. 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 176 Filed 05/01/24 Page 1 of 7
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 Mtn for Partial SJ re Liberty Loan Default

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR 

2 

$800,000 to the Howeys so that the Howeys could pay off a prior secured creditor 

and exit bankruptcy.5 In exchange for the loan, the Howeys agreed to enter into a 

fishing agreement to deliver and sell seafood products to AGS for a fixed period.6 

Liberty funded the loan in April 2019 by paying the prior secured creditor on behalf 

of the Howeys.7

The Loan Agreement and Note required that the loan be repaid with 15 annual 

payments to Liberty, due each year on September 30 and with the first payment due 

on September 30, 2019.8 The parties agreed that payments were to consist of 1/15 

of the principal loaned, plus any interest accrued as of the payment date.9 The 

parties also agreed that payments were to come from either credits from fishing 

deliveries made to AGS or from the Howeys directly.10 Under the Loan Agreement 

and Note, any failure to make a full annual payment would constitute a default on 

the loan.11 The Note provided that in the event of a default, the full amount of the 

loan would be immediately due and payable, and that Liberty could pursue all 

remedies available.12

The Howeys remained current on the loan until 2021. In 2019, the first 

payment was made using credits from AGS from fish deliveries.13 In 2020, Liberty 

granted a one-time deferral of their loan payment due to the effects of COVID-19 on 

fisheries and fishers; the Howeys exercised this deferral and therefore they were not 

in default that year even though no loan payment was made.14 In 2021, however, no 

5 Id. 

6

 Docs. 145-1 at 1; 146-1 at 3–5. 

7

 Doc. 145 at 2, ¶ 2. 

8

Id. at 2–3, ¶ 3. 

9

Id. 

10 Id. 

11 Id. at 3, ¶ 7. 

12 Id. at 3–4, ¶ 7; Doc. 145-1 at 6. 

13 Doc. 145 at 3, ¶ 4. 

14 Id. at 3, ¶ 5. 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 176 Filed 05/01/24 Page 2 of 7
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 Mtn for Partial SJ re Liberty Loan Default

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR 

3 

loan payment was made by the September 30 due date.15 To date, the first year’s 

payment is the only payment that has been made toward the loan.16 

 Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint includes a claim by Liberty for breach of the 

Loan Agreement and Note.17 Specifically, Liberty alleges that the Howeys “breached 

their obligations under the Liberty Loan Agreement and Liberty Note and are in 

default,” rendering the Howeys “liable to Liberty in the principal amount of 

$746,666.67,” plus interest, attorney’s fees, and other collection costs.18 In the 

present Motion, Liberty seeks summary judgment solely on this claim.19

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

the governing law.21 A dispute is “genuine” as to a material fact if there is sufficient 

evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to decide in favor of the nonmoving party.22 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.23

The party moving for summary judgment bears the ultimate burden of 

persuasion and the initial burden of producing evidence that shows the absence of a 

genuine issue of material fact.24 If a moving party successfully carries its burden of 

production, the nonmoving party “must produce evidence to support its claim or 

15 Id. at 3, ¶ 6. 

16 Id.

17 Doc. 64 at 7–8, ¶¶ 4.1–4.2. 

18 Id. 

19 Doc. 144. 

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

21 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.”). 

22 Id. at 248. 

23 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). 

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

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 176 Filed 05/01/24 Page 3 of 7
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 Mtn for Partial SJ re Liberty Loan Default

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR 

4 

defense.”25 It is not the task of the court to “scour the record in search of a genuine 

issue of triable fact.”26 Rather, the nonmoving party must “identify with reasonable 

particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment.”27 “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.”28

III. DISCUSSION

Liberty seeks summary judgment on its claim that the Howeys are liable for 

default on the Liberty loan.29 Liberty explains that the following undisputed facts 

demonstrate the Howeys’ default: “(1) Liberty and the Howeys entered into the Loan 

Agreement and Promissory Note to document the $800,000 loan, (2) Liberty funded 

the loan as agreed, (3) the loan documents required annual payments of a portion of 

the principal and all interest, and (4) Defendants Howey made no payments toward 

the Liberty Loan in 2021, 2022, and 2023.”30 

 The Howeys agree that the above facts are undisputed and do not appear to 

dispute that they are in default on the Liberty loan, but they contend that only partial 

summary judgment on Liberty’s claim for breach of contract based on default is 

appropriate.31 The Howeys appear to argue that there is a factual dispute regarding 

the amount of the balance remaining on the loan.32 This argument appears to be 

based on the theory that AGS breached its “fiduciary duty to the Howeys to not pay 

Liberty . . . more than it was entitled to.”33 The Howeys cite the Court’s previous 

finding, adopted by the District Court, that “there is a clear dispute about a genuine 

25 Id. at 1103. 

26 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)). 

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

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

29 Doc. 144 at 6–7. 

30 Id. at 6. 

31 Doc. 167 at 1–2. 

32 See Doc. 167 at 1–2, 4 (stating that “There are Genuine Issues of Material Fact in More 

Than Just the Alleged Balance of the [Liberty] Loan”). 

33 See Doc. 167 at 4. 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 176 Filed 05/01/24 Page 4 of 7
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 Mtn for Partial SJ re Liberty Loan Default

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR 

5 

issue of material fact as it relates to the interpretation of the Liberty Note.”34 The 

Howeys request that the Court enter an order establishing that all but two facts 

recited in Liberty’s Motion are not in dispute.35 Those two facts are: (1) “[i]n 2019, 

the first Liberty annual loan payment was made by using credits from AGS from 

fishing deliveries made [by] the PACIFIC PREDATOR”; and (2) “[b]ecause only one 

payment was made, the principal balance due on the Liberty loan stood at 

$746,666.67, not including interest, charges, fees, and costs.”36

 In reply, Liberty argues that the propriety of AGS’s 2019 payment toward the 

loan is immaterial to the Howeys’ subsequent default or the amount the Howeys now 

owe on the loan.37 Relatedly, Liberty maintains that AGS did not have a fiduciary 

relationship with the Howeys, and that, in any case, this issue has no bearing on 

Liberty’s loan default claim.38

Based on the undisputed facts summarized in Liberty’s Motion, the Court finds 

that the Howeys are in default on the Liberty loan due to their failure to make loan 

payments as required by the Loan Agreement and Note, beginning in 2021.39 These 

facts, which are substantiated by testimony from John Spaulding (Liberty’s manager 

and president during the relevant time period) and Bryan Howey, further 

demonstrate that the outstanding principal balance is in the amount of 

$746,666.67.40 Though the Howeys challenge the amount of that balance, they 

adduce no evidence showing that the amount might be different.41 

34 Doc. 167 at 1–2 (citing Doc. 115 at 12). 

35 Id. at 5. 

36 Doc. 144 at 4. 

37 Doc. 173 at 5. 

38 Id. at 6–8. 

39 Docs. 145; 145-1; 145-2; 146-1. 

40 Docs. 145 at 4, ¶ 8; 146-1 at 5. 

41 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (“If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails 

to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court 

may . . . grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials—including the 

facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it.”); see also Celotex, 477 

U.S. at 325 (explaining that where party has properly brought a summary judgment motion, 

Rule 56(e) requires nonmoving party to produce evidence to show genuine issue of material 

fact). 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 176 Filed 05/01/24 Page 5 of 7
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 Mtn for Partial SJ re Liberty Loan Default

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR 

6 

Moreover, the Court’s previous finding that there was a genuine issue of 

material fact as to whether AGS properly transferred the 2019 loan payment to 

Liberty does not suffice to create a factual dispute as to the amount of the principal 

balance on the Liberty loan.42 The undisputed evidence before the Court establishes 

that, no matter whether AGS lawfully paid the amount it paid toward the Liberty 

loan that year, the payment was made and resulted in the balance standing at 

$746,666.67 at the time of the Howeys’ default. Any argument Defendants may wish 

to make as to the propriety of AGS’s 2019 loan payment—whether based on contract 

interpretation principles or the existence of a fiduciary duty—does not pertain to 

Liberty’s claim that the Howeys defaulted on the Liberty loan by failing to make 

payments in 2021, 2022, and 2023, and that the principal balance on the loan is 

$746,666.67. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The Court finds that there is no dispute of material fact that the Howeys are 

in default on the Liberty loan due to nonpayment and that the principal balance 

remaining on the loan is $746,666.67. Liberty is entitled to summary judgment on 

its loan default claim. Thus, the Court recommends that Liberty’s Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment re Liberty Loan Default at Docket 144 be GRANTED.

DATED this 1st day of May, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska. 

s/ Kyle F. Reardon

KYLE F. REARDON 

United States Magistrate Judge 

District of Alaska 

// 

// 

42 See Doc. 115 at 11–12 (denying summary judgment in favor of Defendants because genuine 

factual dispute existed as to whether AGS acted improperly by making full loan payment in 

2019 using the Howeys’ fishing credits). 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 176 Filed 05/01/24 Page 6 of 7
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 Mtn for Partial SJ re Liberty Loan Default

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator 

3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR 

7 

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.43 A district court judge may accept, reject, or modify, 

in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s order.44 

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

fourteen (14) days.45 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.46 

43 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 

44 Id. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

45 Id. 

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

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 176 Filed 05/01/24 Page 7 of 7