Peterson v. Gentile

86 F.3d 1163 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David Alan PETERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dominic P. GENTILE, and his marital community and the Law Firm of Gentile, Porter & Kelesis; Doe, John, unknown and unnamed legal malpractice insurer(s), Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-17026. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 20, 1996. * Decided May 29, 1996. Before: BROWNING, REINHARDT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 David Allen Paterson appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in his diversity action for legal malpractice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. 3 We review a district court's summary judgment de novo. See Damron v. Herzog, 67 F.3d 211, 213 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 922 (1996). Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact.…