11. Tom worked for a messenger service owned by Dalton. While Tom was driving a Dalton-owned vehicle on busi ness in Miami, he hit and injured Pedro, a pedestrian who resides in Alabama. Pedro brought a diversity action against Dalton in federal court in Florida on a theory of respondeat superior (principal-agent) Personal service was properly made, pursuant to FRCP 4(e2), on Dalton, a Florida resident. Dalton now wishes to implead Tom as a third-party defendant (if Dalton is held liable to Pedro, Dalton will be entitled to indemnity from Tom). Tom is a resident of Puerto Rico and lives in San Juan, a two-hour flight from Miami. Dalton caused a licensed process server to serve Tom personally at Tom's home in San Juan. Assume that Florida has no long- arm statute allowing state-court jurisdiction over any defendant who cannot be physically found with Florida. Does the Florida federal court have personal jurisdiction over Dalton's third-party claim against Tom? a. Yes, because Tom was a third-party defendant who was served within 100 miles of the federal courthouse b. No, because there is no Florida long-arm statute that would authorize state-court jurisdiction over Tom. c. Yes, because service was properly made on Dalton within Florida, the state or district where the federal suit is 8 pending d. Yes, because Pedro, Dalton, and Tom are all citizens of different states or districts. e. None of the above