Yasmin suffered a personal injury while operating her lawn mower at home in California. She filed suit in state court against the manufacturer, John Deere. John Deere is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Illinois. Yasmin also sued the seller, Home Depot, which is incorporated in California with its principal place of business in California. Yasmin and Home Depot informally agreed to settle out of court, but the agreement was subject to approval by Home Depot's insurer. Before a final agreement was reached regarding settlement with Home Depot, John Deere filed a motion in state court to remove the case to federal court. Although Yasmin opposed removal, the state court granted John Deere's motion. After the case was removed to federal court, Yasmin and Home Depot finalized their settlement agreement and Home Depot was dismissed from the lawsuit. The federal district court proceeded to hear the case and ruled in favor of John Deere. Yasmin appealed on the basis that diversity between the parties was lacking so the federal district court had no jurisdiction over the case. She claims that the case should be remanded to state court for a new trial. 1. What is required for diversity of citizenship cases? And what does it mean when all elements are met? 2. At the time of John Deere’s motion, was there diversity of citizenship with all parties? Why or why not? Please support your answer with facts from the case. 3. After Home Depot was dismissed from the lawsuit, was there diversity of citizenship? Please explain why or why not. 4. Based on your response to question number three, do you think the case should be remanded back to state court? Please explain your answer.