Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027-1/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., d/b/a 

Alaska General Seafoods, a Delaware 

corporation;, and LIBERTY 

PACKING, LLC, a Washington limited 

liability company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PACIFIC PREDATOR, AK 

Registration No. AK3565AN, its 

engines, machinery, appurtenances, 

etc., in rem; BRYAN HOWEY, in 

personam; DANA HOWEY, in 

personam; and ALASKA WILD 

EXPORTS, LLC, in personam;

Defendants.

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

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AS 

MODIFIED

Before the Court at Docket 22 is Plaintiff Liberty Packing LLC’s Motion for 

Replevin (the “Motion”). Defendants responded in opposition at Docket 35. Plaintiff filed 

a reply at Docket 45. The Motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. 

Reardon. At Docket 65, Judge Reardon issued his Report and Recommendation (the 

“Report and Recommendation”), in which he recommended that the Motion be denied. 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 86 Filed 12/09/22 Page 1 of 3
Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., et al. vs. Pacific Predator, et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation as Modified Page 2

Defendants objected to the Report and Recommendation at Docket 74. Plaintiff did not 

file its own objections or otherwise respond to Defendants’ objections. 

This 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.” 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.”1

 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.”2

Defendants object “to the Magistrate[] [Judge’s] Statement of Facts and 

Procedural History, but not to the Legal Standard and Analysis, nor to the Conclusion and 

Recommendation.”3

 Defendants object to “preserve their objections so the Statement of 

Facts aren’t considered Findings of Fact for future motions and trial.”4

 Reviewing 

Defendants’ objections de novo, Defendants’ objections all go to the factual dispute at the 

heart of this matter.

5 It is unnecessary and premature for the Court to resolve these factual 

disputes at this stage of the litigation. Judge Reardon recounted the facts and procedural 

1

 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 2

 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.”).

3

 Docket 74 at 1. 4

 Id.

5

 Id. at 2–4.

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 86 Filed 12/09/22 Page 2 of 3
Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., et al. vs. Pacific Predator, et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation as Modified Page 3

history, primarily drawing from Plaintiffs’ Complaint, solely to discern whether the facts 

as alleged could support an action for replevin.6

 The Court understands, however, that 

Defendants lodge these objections to preserve their arguments. For the avoidance of doubt, 

the Court will modify footnote one in the Report and Recommendation to read: “The 

Statement of Facts is limited to those facts necessary to decide the motion before the Court. 

The Statement of Facts and Procedural History do not constitute binding findings of fact.” 

Judge Reardon recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Replevin at Docket 22. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and 

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

as modified, and IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Replevin is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of December, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.

 /s/ Joshua M. Kindred 

JOSHUA M. KINDRED

United States District Judge

6

 See Docket 65 at 1–4, 8 (“However, even if the Court were to liberally construe Plaintiff 

Liberty’s verified complaint and exhibits, along with its other relevant filings on this issue as 

sufficient to meet Rule 88’s dictates in form, it would still fall short in substance.”).

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 86 Filed 12/09/22 Page 3 of 3