Case Name: Morris S. MAXWELL; Shawn R. Maxwell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOAB INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-28
Citations: 632 F. App'x 424
Docket Number: No. 14-17334
Parties: Morris S. MAXWELL; Shawn R. Maxwell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOAB INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 424–425

Head Matter:
Morris S. MAXWELL; Shawn R. Maxwell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOAB INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-17334.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 28, 2016.
Morris S. Maxwell, San Mateo, CA, pro se.
Shawn R. Maxwell, San Mateo, CA, pro se.
Brenda Cruz Keith, Law Office of Brenda Cruz Keith, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Morris S. and Shawn R. Maxwell appeal pro se from the district court's order declaring them vexatious litigants and imposing pre-filing restrictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring the Maxwells vexatious litigants and entering a pre-filing order against them after providing them with notice and an opportunity to' be heard, developing an adequate record for review, making substantive findings regarding their frivolous litigation history, and tailoring the restriction narrowly. See id. at 1057, 1058-61 (discussing factors to consider before imposing pre-filing restrictions).
We reject as meritless the Maxwells' contentions that they were denied due pro cess and equal protection due to a lack of a full and fair hearing on their claims.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.