Darru Hsu v. Ubs Financial Services, Inc. , 671 F. App'x 976 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      DEC 22 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DARRU K. “KEN” HSU, Individually and            No. 14-15588
    as Trustee of the Darru K. Hsu and Gina T.
    Hsu Living Trust U/AO5/O5/03;                   D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02076-WHA
    individually and on behalf of all others
    similarly situated,
    MEMORANDUM*
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 14, 2016**
    Before:       WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Darru K. “Ken” Hsu appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
    his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    *
    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).
    60(d)(3). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for abuse of
    discretion, United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 
    660 F.3d 415
    , 443 (9th Cir. 2011),
    and we affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hsu relief from the
    judgment because Hsu failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that
    defendant perpetrated a “fraud on the court.” Pizzuto v. Ramirez, 
    783 F.3d 1171
    ,
    1181 (9th Cir. 2015) (requiring more specific evidence of fraud than plaintiff’s
    “series of allegations and implications”). We reject as without merit Hsu’s
    contention that the district court applied the wrong legal standard. See 
    id.
     (“The
    burden of proof rests with petitioner to show the fraud by clear and convincing
    evidence.”).
    We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    All pending motions and requests are denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    14-15588
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-15588

Citation Numbers: 671 F. App'x 976

Filed Date: 12/22/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023