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., 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