Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., et al. vs. Pacific Predator, AK Registration No. AK3565AN, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
KANAWAY SEAFOODS, INC., doing
business as ALASKA GENERAL
SEAFOODS, a Delaware corporation,
and LIBERTY PACKING LLC, a
Washington Limited Liability
Company,
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.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION
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
Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 143 Filed 02/09/24 Page 1 of 3

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., et al., v. Pacific Predator, et al. 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 2
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.
3 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.”).
Case 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 143 Filed 02/09/24 Page 2 of 3

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., et al., v. Pacific Predator, et al. 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-JMK-KFR
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 3
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 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR Document 143 Filed 02/09/24 Page 3 of 3