ADIL HIRAMANEK V. SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT, No. 17-16436 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADIL HIRAMANEK; RODA HIRAMANEK, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-16436 D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00228-JD Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. 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

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.