Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00027-12/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 

DANA HOWEY, in personam., et al., 

Counter-Claimants, 

v. 

KANAWAY SEAFOODS, INC., et al., 

Counter-Defendants. 

ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Before the Court at Docket 148 is Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants’ (“Plaintiffs”) 

Motion for Summary Judgment Re Counterclaims for (1) Conversion (2) Intentional 

Interference and (3) Violation of Alaska UTPA. Defendants/Counter-Claimants 

(“Defendants”) responded in opposition at Docket 163 to which Plaintiffs filed a 

reply at Docket 171. The motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge 

Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 193, Judge Reardon issued his Report and 

Recommendation, in which he recommended that summary judgment be granted 

as to Defendants’ intentional interference with prospective economic advantage 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 209 Filed 09/13/24 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 

counterclaim and UTPA counterclaim and that summary judgment be denied in 

part as to Defendants’ conversion counterclaim. The Magistrate Judge also 

recommended that the Seventh and Tenth Causes of Action in Defendants’ 

Countercomplaint be dismissed. No objections to the Report and 

Recommendation were filed. 

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 

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 Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with 

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

entirety, and IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion at Docket 148 is GRANTED in 

part and DENIED in part; summary judgment to Plaintiffs is GRANTED as to 

Defendants’ intentional interference and UTPA counterclaims and summary 

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 209 Filed 09/13/24 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 

judgment is DENIED as to Defendants’ conversion counterclaim. The Seventh and 

Tenth Causes of Action in Defendants’ Countercomplaint are hereby DISMISSED. 

DATED this 13th day of September 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska. 

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 209 Filed 09/13/24 Page 3 of 3