Adil Hiramanek v. Santa Clara Superior Court ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADIL HIRAMANEK; RODA No. 17-16436
HIRAMANEK,
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00228-JD
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
SUPERIOR COURT FOR COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA; BETH MILLER,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Adil Hiramanek and Roda Hiramanek appeal pro se from the district court’s
order awarding costs to the prevailing defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Save Our Valley v. Sound
*
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).
Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944 n.12 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding costs to
defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). See Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072,
1087 (9th Cir. 2016) (“We have interpreted Rule 54(d)(1) as creating a
presumption for awarding costs to prevailing parties; the losing party must show
why costs should not be awarded.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)). Contrary to the Hiramaneks’ contentions, the district court reviewed the
requested costs, reduced the cost bill considerably, and considered the
Hiramaneks’ arguments concerning their limited financial resources before
affirming the adjusted cost award.
We reject as unsupported by the record the Hiramaneks’ contentions that
defendants committed a fraud on the court and the district court was biased against
them.
All pending requests and motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-16436