NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 6 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: AMADEUS THERAPY, INC. No. 25-3867 D.C. No. Debtor 24-1049 _____________________________

MEMORANDUM*

NAI HORIZON,

Appellant.

v.

AMADEUS THERAPY, INC.,

Appellee.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Julia W. Brand, Gary A. Spraker, and Frederick Philip Corbit, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted March 4, 2026** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, BYBEE, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Appellant NAI Horizon (“NAI”) appeals from an order of the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of NAI’s Rule

60(d)(3) Motion for Relief from Judgment. NAI argues that it established that debtor

Amadeus Therapy, Inc. (“Debtor”) and its principal Bridget O’Brien committed

fraud on the court in the underlying bankruptcy court action. Reviewing for an abuse

of discretion, Pizzuto v. Ramirez, 783 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2015), we affirm.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) permits a party to seek relief from a

judgment on the basis of fraud, but the motion must be brought “within a reasonable

time,” and “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(c)(1). However, Rule 60(d) permits the court to set aside a judgment even

after this time frame for the reason of “fraud on the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3).

Fraud on the court must involve egregious conduct and must go beyond

nondisclosure of evidence or even perjury by a party or witness. United States v.

Est. of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 444 (9th Cir. 2011); Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. Swisher

Int’l, Inc., 31 F.4th 1124, 1134 (9th Cir. 2022). The party asserting fraud on the

court must establish the fraud by clear and convincing evidence. Pizzuto, 783 F.3d

at 1181.

NAI did not satisfy this exacting standard. NAI contends that the recent

declaration from Dr. Wooten, obtained more than a year after the trial and entry of

judgment, establishes that the original letter Ms. O’Brien produced at trial was false

2 25-3867 or forged. But it does not quite go that far, and, indeed, in many ways corroborates

Ms. O’Brien’s trial testimony. The new declaration is, at best, a clarification of the

earlier letter, confirming that Ms. O’Brien had requested the letter and that she was

receiving naturopathic treatment from Dr. Wooten while receiving cancer treatments

from other doctors and clinics, even though he was not the doctor who diagnosed

her.

The remaining arguments raised by NAI in its opening brief address issues

beyond the scope of this appeal. They relate to issues in the underlying merits trial,

which was already the subject of an unsuccessful appeal to district court. NAI

Horizon v. Amadeus Therapy, Inc., No. CV-23-00371-PHX, 2024 WL 776657, at

*3-4 (D. Ariz. Feb. 26, 2024) (affirming the bankruptcy court judgment). NAI chose

not to appeal from that district court decision and filed the Rule 60(d)(3) motion

instead. The denial of the Rule 60(d)(3) motion is the only ruling before us in this

appeal, and is thus the only ruling we address.

AFFIRMED.

3 25-3867