Gherini

MEMORANDUM *

Francis Denby Gherini appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.

The district court dismissed Gherini’s action with prejudice on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the “probate exception” to federal jurisdiction. Following the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 , 126 S.Ct. 1735 , 164 L.Ed.2d 480 (2006), however, that ground is no longer valid. Gherini’s first amended complaint asserts RICO and tort claims and seeks an in personam damages judgment against the defendants themselves; it does not seek to administer an estate, probate a will, or otherwise assume in rem jurisdiction over property in the custody of a state probate court. Therefore, the probate exception does not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over Gherini’s claims. See Marshall, 547 U.S. at 311-12 , 126 S.Ct. 1735 .

Nevertheless, we may affirm the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss on any ground supported by the record. Beeman v. TDI Managed Care Servs., Inc., 449 F.3d 1035 , 1038 (9th Cir.2006). We hold that the district court lacks jurisdiction…