NLRB v. Lori Irish ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS No. 18-15063
BOARD,
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01747-LRH-
Petitioner-Appellee, CWH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORI IRISH,
Respondent-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Lori Irish appeals pro se from the district court’s orders on the National
Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) renewed motion for disbursement of funds
pursuant to garnishment in the NLRB’s action under 28 U.S.C. § 3205. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand.
In its November 17, 2017 order, the district court granted the NLRB’s
renewed motion for disbursement of funds and denied Irish’s motions seeking
release of seized funds after finding that Irish had a substantial nonexempt interest
in the subject account held with garnishee J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. See 28 U.S.C
§ 3205(a).
In its February 5, 2019 order, the district court vacated its November 17,
2017 order and directed the NLRB to remit $1,319.58 to Irish, in light of an
intervening change in Nevada law increasing the personal property exemption limit
for a judgment debtor. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 21.90(1)(z).
On appeal, Irish primarily argues that the NLRB failed to comply with the
district court’s February 5, 2019 order because the Board remitted only $996.51 to
her. However, because this issue was not litigated before the district court, we
remand for the district court to determine in the first instance whether the Treasury
Offset Program, 31 U.S.C. § 3720A(a), applies to the distribution of garnished
funds, and whether the NLRB properly remitted only $996.51 to Irish.
We do not consider Irish’s challenge to the judgment underlying this
garnishment action. This court previously denied Irish’s motion for
reconsideration of the judgment enforcing the NLRB’s August 27, 2010 order. See
Docket Entry No. 15 in Case No. 11-70269.
2 18-15063
We reject as without merit Irish’s contention that the garnishment was
obtained by fraud.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3 18-15063