HIRAMANEK v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

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 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.