A local public official and her boyfriend attended a political campaign fundraising event. At the event, they saw photos on the wall by a photographer who was famous for taking pictures of people they encountered around the town. As the public official and her boyfriend walked around the exhibit, they discovered that the artist had taken a picture of the public official with the leader of a white nationalist organization while standing in front of a government building. The boyfriend became so upset that he fainted, injuring himself when he hit the ground. The public official and boyfriend sued the artist in federal court. The public official was a citizen of State Z, the boyfriend was a citizen of State Y, and the artist was a citizen of State X. The public official's claim was for libel in the amount of $65,000. The boyfriend's claim was for $15,000 under state laws for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The artist moved to dismiss the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Which of the following is most accurate? Question 57 options: a) The court should grant the motion as to the boyfriend's claim, because he is not a public figure. b) The court should grant the motion, because the federal court does not have jurisdiction over either claim. c) The court should deny the motion, because a federal court must hear the case as it involves defamation of a public figure. d) The court should deny the motion, because there is complete diversit