please answer the question.
Cheyenne, a citizen of Florida, wishes to bring a product-liability suit against various defendants. She claims that the shampoo she has been using for six months has caused her to develop a painful case of hives. Her lawyer has identified as possible defendants: (a) Sally Merry Products, Inc., the manufacturer of the hair restoration product; (b) Monroe Drugstores, the drugstore where Cheyenne purchased the product; and (c) Southern Distributors, the wholesaler that distributes the product to retailers like Monroe Drugstores. Cheyenne seeks $100,000 from each of the defendants, for a total of $300,000 in damages.
Cheyenne resides in Tampa, which is in the Northern District of Florida. Sally Merry Products is a Delaware corporation whose principal headquarters and is in Georgia. Sally Merry shampoo is extensively consumed throughout the United States (it is as popular as Pepsi). Monroe Drugstores operates drugstores in the greater Tampa area. Southern Distributors is a Delaware corporation with executive headquarters in Alabama. It distributes products in all southern states, including all parts of Florida. (Continued on next page…)
Cheyenne’s attorney has told her that he prefers to bring all suits in Miami, which is in the Southern District of Florida and is where juries are much more liberal in their verdicts. He also prefers to litigate in federal court. Even though she has never been to Miami, Cheyenne agreed with her attorney.
Which of the following statements is MOST ACCURATE?
A. A federal court in Miami has both subject matter jurisdiction and venue in Cheyenne’s action.
B. While a federal court in Miami probably has subject matter jurisdiction, venue in Miami is improper because no “events” happened there and not all defendants reside in Florida.
C. While a federal court in Miami probably has subject matter jurisdiction, venue in Miami is improper because no “events” happened there and no defendant resides in the Southern District of Florida.
D. There is no subject matter jurisdiction because two of the defendants are citizens of the same state.