NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

- interest

Appellee. No. 23

- 16054
D.C. No. 1:18

- cv - 00145

- JMS

- RT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawai ʻ i 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 APPEALS2 Submitted June 12, 2024 * * Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i 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 attorney s’ fees from the Settlement Fund

. The district court ordered the
Settlement Fund to be paid to the United States pur suant to its writ of garnishment

. We affirm.
TSB’s assert ion 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 it s 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 d istrict c ourt 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 76 9

. 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 garnish ed the recovery as a creditor of Sandwich
Isles Commun ications, 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
.