NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, USA on 

behalf of RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE, an 

agency of the Department of Agriculture, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

TAMASHIRO SOGI & BONNER, ALC, 

Creditor-Appellant, 

 v. 

SANDWICH ISLES COMMUNICATIONS, 

INC.; et al., 

Defendants, 

 and 

FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

HAWAII, LTD., Garnishee, 

Real-party-in-interestAppellee.

No. 23-16054 

D.C. No. 

1:18-cv-00145-JMS-RT 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaiʻi

Rom Alex Trader, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

JUN 14 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Submitted June 12, 2024**

Honolulu, Hawaiʻi

Before: CALLAHAN, HURWITZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Tamashiro Sogi & Bonner (“TSB”), a law corporation, appeals from a

district court order overruling TSB’s objection to the government’s writ of 

garnishment on the proceeds of a settlement (the “Settlement Fund”) in a civil 

action. TSB, which had represented Sandwich Isles Communications in that 

action, asserted that, pursuant to the “common fund doctrine,” it was entitled to 

recover attorneys’ fees from the Settlement Fund. The district court ordered the 

Settlement Fund to be paid to the United States pursuant to its writ of garnishment. 

We affirm.

TSB’s assertion of an interest in the Settlement Fund pursuant to the 

common fund doctrine is a request for equitable relief. See US Airways, Inc. v. 

McCutchen, 569 U.S. 88, 100 (2013). We review the denial of equitable relief for 

abuse of discretion. GCIU-Emp. Ret. Fund v. MNG Enters., Inc., 51 F.4th 1092, 

1097 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2665 (2023). We also review a final 

order of garnishment for abuse of discretion. United States v. Clayton, 613 F.3d 

592, 595 (9th Cir. 2010). 

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
3 

TSB’s sole contention is that its claim to the Settlement Fund based on the 

common fund doctrine was superior to the government’s writ of garnishment. The 

only authority it cites to support its claim is Vincent v. Hughes Air West, Inc., 557 

F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1977).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling TSB’s objection. 

In Vincent, we explained that the common fund doctrine “provides that a private 

plaintiff, or his attorney, whose efforts create, discover, increase or preserve a fund 

to which others also have a claim is entitled to recover from the fund the costs of 

his litigation, including attorneys’ fees.” Id. at 769. As suggested by its name, the 

“common fund” doctrine is designed to address the interests of litigating parties to 

an asset that is created as a result of that litigation. See id. Here, the state court 

litigation that approved the Settlement Fund did not create a common fund. In this 

action, the government merely garnished the recovery as a creditor of Sandwich 

Isles Communications, TSB’s client. TSB does not claim that it had an interest in 

the Settlement Fund superior to that of its client. Thus, the common fund doctrine, 

the only basis TSB offers on appeal for its interest in the Settlement Fund, did not 

give the firm a superior interest to that of the United States.

AFFIRMED.