YAN SUI V. 2176 PACIFIC HOMEOWNERS ASSOC., No. 15-55706 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 18 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YAN SUI; PEI-YU YANG, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-55706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
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.
