requirements for maintaining a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to dismiss or strike the section 17200 claim. The district court granted that motion and gave Kennedy leave to amend to proceed only on her individual claims. When Kennedy declined to amend the district court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review de novo a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim. Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001). We may affirm a dismissal on any proper ground. See Vestar Dev. II, LLC v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir.2001); Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). As an initial matter, we reject Kennedy’s
holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds recognizing that this court may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record quotation omitted holding that a reviewing court may affirm denial of class certification on any grounds holding that an appellate court may affirm the result reached by a district court on alternative grounds