Sukumar

MEMORANDUM **

Understandably weary after presiding for nearly five years over a vexatious diversity sales-of-goods case, which the trial court deemed concluded by a bench trial, the court imposed upon itself a fourteen *557 day “extension of its jurisdiction” during which the purchaser was ordered to complete his inspection of delivered goods, and report to the court “any material deficiencies in the equipment.” True to their past performances, the parties and their counsel managed to inject brinksmanship of their own confection into the fourteen day “extension,” and the purchaser filed, five days late, a twenty-seven page list of “breaches.” In a series of orders, the district court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, and the purchaser appeals.

From time to time we have relied upon the common-law wisdom of the dictum: that we can affirm a correct result “on any ground supported by the record, even if it is one not expressed by the district court.” See, e.g., Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 964 (9th Cir.2004). Unfortunately, this is not a case in which that sensible dictum should apply. Whether invited error, or just plain error, the district court’s restriction of…