Case Name: YAN SUI; Pei-Yu Yang, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 2176 PACIFIC HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California Corporation; Stephen D. Price, an individual, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-18
Citations: 691 F. App'x 376
Docket Number: No. 15-55706
Parties: YAN SUI; Pei-Yu Yang, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 2176 PACIFIC HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California Corporation; Stephen D. Price, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 376–377

Head Matter:
YAN SUI; Pei-Yu Yang, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 2176 PACIFIC HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California Corporation; Stephen D. Price, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-55706
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 8, 2017
Filed May 18, 2017
Yan Sui, Pro Se
Pei-Yu Yang, Pro Se
James Clement Harkins, Esquire, Attorney, Cane Walker & Harkins LLP, Tustin, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, 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
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. 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 (set ting forth requirements for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,