DARRU HSU V. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., No. 14-15588 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DARRU K. “KEN” HSU, Individually and as Trustee of the Darru K. Hsu and Gina T. Hsu Living Trust U/AO5/O5/03; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-15588 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02076-WHA 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

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.