Finney v. Howey
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
BRANNON FINNEY, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN R. HOWEY, and his marital Case No. 3:20-cv-00289-SLG-KFR community, Defendant.
ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Before the Court at Docket 33 is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order re Report and Recommendation at Docket 31. Defendant asserts that the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction always rests with the plaintiff. Regardless of who bears that burden, the Court has found that it has
subject matter jurisdiction in admiralty over this contract dispute regarding the temporary transfer of a Limited Entry Permit for commercial fishing, as “the nature of the transaction was maritime.”1 Therefore, the motion to reconsider is DENIED. DATED this 29th day of December, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14, 24 (2004) (quoting Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., 500 U.S. 603, 611 (1991)).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Finney v. Howey (Finney v. Howey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.