Jake owns a company called Boat Builders, LLC and one evening he took several of his employees out after work to a bar. After eating and drinking for several hours Jake invited them back to the Boat Builders premises so he and some of the employees could show off a boat they’d been working on. After arriving at Boat Builders they all continued to drink and two of the employees, Tyler and Mark, got into an argument. When Tyler went to use the bathroom Mark attacked him from behind causing him to lose consciousness and break a tooth. Mark made light of it but gave Jake a menacing look so Jake dropped it and went to check on Tyler. Tyler sat up and asked what happened and Jake told him that Mark had attacked him from behind. About an hour passed by during which time Jake went out to his car and got his phone so he could play music for everyone. After an hour, Tyler and Mark began to argue again and they walked outside into the Boat Builders parking lot where Mark attacked Tyler again. Mark left and was later arrested for aggravated battery. Tyler regained consciousness after 10 minutes and drove home even though he was badly injured. Does Tyler have a negligence claim against Boat Builders? Why or why not? A complete answer will be at least 5 sentences and mention critical facts.

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court.the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center.because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.