eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2017-05

Yan Sui v. 2176 Pacific Homeowners Assoc. , 691 F. App'x 376 ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAN SUI; PEI-YU YANG,                           No. 15-55706
Plaintiffs-Appellants,          D.C. No. 8:11-cv-01340-JAK-AJW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
2176 PACIFIC HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, a California Corporation;
STEPHEN D. PRICE, an individual,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Before:      REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Yan Sui and Pei-Yu Yang appeal pro se from the district court’s order
denying their motions for sanctions and attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Holgate v.
*
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).
Baldwin,
    425 F.3d 671
    , 675 (9th Cir. 2005) (sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11);
Richard S. v. Dep’t of Developmental Servs.,
    317 F.3d 1080
    , 1085 (9th Cir. 2003)
(attorney’s fees); Barber v. Miller,
    146 F.3d 707
    , 709 (9th Cir. 1998) (sanctions
under 28 U.S.C. § 1927). We affirm.
The district court properly denied plaintiffs’ untimely motion presented to
the district court seeking costs and attorney’s fees incurred on appeal because
plaintiffs failed to comply with the procedure set forth in Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.
See Cummings v. Connell,
    402 F.3d 936
    , 947-48 (9th Cir. 2005) (a request for
attorney’s fees incurred on appeal must be filed with the court of appeals); see also
9th Cir. R. 39-1.6 (setting time limits for a request for fees on appeal).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion
for sanctions against defendants because plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they
were entitled to an award of sanctions. See Holgate, 425 F.3d at 675-78 (setting
forth requirements for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11); Barber, 146 F.3d at 711
(setting forth requirements for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927).
AFFIRMED.
2                                  15-55706