Cole v. Armstrong

97 F.3d 1458 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Richard A. COLE, M.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cole Family Partners, L.P., a Pennsylvania limited partnership, Plaintiff, v. Robert ARMSTRONG; Sanford M. Fisch; Center for Advance Asset Protection, a California Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-55248. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 23, 1996. * Decided Sept. 27, 1996. Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. MEMORANDUM ** Richard A. Cole appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his securities action against the defendants for failure to respond to an order to show cause as to why Cole failed to timely serve the defendants with the summons and complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate and remand. We review the district court's dismissal for failure to comply with an order of the court for abuse of discretion. See Swanson v. United States…