Sam and Dave are going to open a sporting goods store. They sign a written limited partnership agreement naming Dave as a limited partner and Sam as the general partner. Sam files a certificate of limited partnership with the state. Sam contributes $100,000 toward the start-up, while Dave contributes $200,000. They agree to split profits evenly because Sam will be working in the store and operating the day-to-day business. About a month after they open, the business is not doing well, so Dave starts becoming more involved. Soon he is requiring that Sam approve all purchases with him, and Dave is actively directing Jack, the sole other employee. One day, Geoff, a customer, is injured when a bowling ball falls off a shelf and shatters his foot. Geoff sues and is awarded a judgment of $1 million. a. As this was a limited partnership, Sonya is liable for $800,000 and Davi is liable for $200,000
b. whoever negligently secured the bowling ball on the shelf is liable for the $1 million liability.
c. Sonya and Davi are each liable for up to $500,000.
d. Under the circumstances, Sonya and Davi are both jointly and severally liable for the full $1 million.

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.