Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator, AK Registration No. AK3565AN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA KANAWAY SEAFOODS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC PREDATOR, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Defendants.

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 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 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