United States District Court for the District of Alaska, 2024

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

United States District Court for the District of Alaska · Decided February 9, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

KANAWAY SEAFOODS, INC., doing business as ALASKA GENERAL SEAFOODS, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR and LIBERTY PACKING LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiffs, vs. PACIFIC PREDATOR, AK Registration No. AK3565AN, its Engines, Machinery, Appurtenances, etc., In Rem, and BRIAN HOWEY and DANA HOWEY, Alaska Wild Exports LLC, in personam, vs. Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 91. The Motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon.

Plaintiffs, responded in opposition at Docket 98. Defendants replied at Docket 104.

Judge Reardon issued his Findings and Recommendations at Docket 115, in which he recommended that the motion be denied. Defendants filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations at Dockets 116. Plaintiffs responded to Defendants’ objections at Docket 118.

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 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.”3 Defendants raised two objections for the Court to review. First, Defendants argue there is no dispute in the balance of the ASG Note. Additionally, Defendants argue there is no dispute concerning the interpretation of the language in the Liberty Note. The Court has reviewed the Amended Complaint; the Motion for Summary Judgment; Plaintiffs’ response to the Motion for Summary Judgement; Defendants’ reply; the exhibits provided by both parties; and Defendants’ objections. Further, the Court independently

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 2 Id. 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.”). evaluated the factual and legal arguments raised in Defendants’ objections. Upon its review, the Court finds Defendants’ objections lack merit.4 The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion for Summary Judgement. The Court has reviewed the Findings and Recommendations and agrees with the analyses. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations at Dockets 115, and IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgement at Docket 91 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Joshua M. Kindred JOSHUA M. KINDRED United States District Judge

4 United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (articulating that “the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection.”).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.