NLRB V. LORI IRISH, No. 14-15054 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 13-17409 14-15054 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01747-LRHCWH 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 January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Lori Irish appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion for release of seized funds in the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) action to satisfy a prior judgment entered against Irish. We dismiss. * 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). As both parties concede, the district court has not addressed all of the issues necessary to reach a final resolution in this action. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order because it was not final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Nat’l Distribution Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A ruling is final for purposes of § 1291 if it (1) is a full adjudication of the issues, and (2) clearly evidences the judge’s intention that it be the court’s final act in the matter.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443, 448 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A final decision is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. ” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Irish’s motion for the NLRB to supply a copy of her deposition is denied. DISMISSED. 2 14-15054

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.