Fayler

MEMORANDUM *

Lila Fayler appeals the order of the district court setting aside a judgment of default and dismissing the complaint for improper service of process. We affirm. *640 Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we will not recount it here.

I

The district court had jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . Jurisdiction was not foreclosed by the probate exception to diversity jurisdiction which merely prohibits federal courts from probating a will or administering an estate. Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 , 66 S.Ct. 296 , 90 L.Ed. 256 (1946). The pleadings in the instant case do not require the district court to perform either task. Nor does California law vest exclusive jurisdiction of such matters in its probate courts. Contrary to Lila Fayler’s assertion in her briefing, a probate court in California “has no jurisdiction to hear and determine controversies between third persons and the estate of a deceased person.” In re Osgood’s Estate, 52 Cal.App.2d 293 , 126 P.2d 6, 7 (1942). The requirement that a claim be first presented to the probate court, see Cal. Prob.Code § 9390, does not divest a…