Adil Hiramanek v. Santa Clara Superior Court

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 22, 2019
• Docket: 17-16436
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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