22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4e7,MEMORANDUM 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 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 plaintiffs “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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T51e,

MEMORANDUM

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 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 plaintiffs “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.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.