
    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).
    
   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 (setting 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,
     