Is a motion to dismiss an action brought by a former employee of a law firm based on erroneous facts?

The district court stated in its order of dismissal, dated March 18, 1994, that because Barnes "has now been out of contact with the court for more than 6 weeks, the appropriate and only available sanction is dismissal." Barnes, however, had notified the district court on March 7, 1994 of his change in address. Because the district court relied on erroneous facts in dismissing Barnes's action we vacate the district court's dismissal and remand for further proceedings. See United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405, 1410 (9th Cir. 1993).