You can read the full opinion for more details about the particular procedural moves the debtors here employed, but this snippet from page 21 will at least give you a sense:
"Here, the bankruptcy court considered Appellants’
multiple bankruptcy filings, repeated failure to fully
prosecute those petitions, and their conduct in the instant
case, such as failing to submit necessary documents and
failing to appear at hearings. One of the Appellants, though
the record is unclear which one, has previously had a 180-
day bar against them. Despite their significant history in
bankruptcy court, both Appellants failed to appear at the
hearing on the motion to bar them from filing. The Court
infers that a lack of schedule filings and other documentation
in their past bankruptcy cases is due to repeated bad faith
filings. Moreover, the Appellants have been living
rent/mortgage free in their home for multiple years during
the pendency of these proceedings, and they only filed
bankruptcy cases—the twelfth and thirteenth cases filed by the Srinivasan family—when the Appellee attempted to
evict them from the home by foreclosure or other action.
Based on this record, the bankruptcy court reasonably
calibrated the refiling bar to Appellants’ specific history in
bankruptcy court."
Oh yeah. Indeed, had I been the judge, they'd have been barred from refiling for much longer than a year.