Brad, a California resident, uses his popular blog to make false and disparaging comments about a dog breeding business incorporated and headquartered in the state of Illinois, Dog Delight, Inc. ("Dog Delight"). Brad knows that Dog Delight's business is located in Illinois, that the false and disparaging comments he posts online from his home in California will be seen by other clients of Dog Delight including in Illinois, and that the comments will likely harm Dog Delight by damaging its reputation and decreasing its revenues by scaring away potential clients.If Dog Delight sues Brad, alleging only an Illinois state law defamation claim (a claim that Brad's words wrongfully harmed Dog Delight's business reputation), seeking $100,000 in damages based upon reasonable estimates of the harm caused to its business by Brad's comments, which of the following best describes the court or courts that would have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim:

Group of answer choices

Only a state court in Illinois

State courts in Illinois and California, but not any federal court

Only a federal court in California or Illinois

Only a state court in California

State courts in Illinois and California, and a federal court based on diversity jurisdiction