Develop a discussion which includes the following: Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion: (IRAC Method) from the following case.

Hertz Corp. v. Friend559 U.S. 77 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2010)

Alleging violations of Californias wage and hour laws, California citizens Melinda Friend and John Nhieu sued Hertz Corporation in a California state court. Hertz filed a notice seeking removal of the case to a federal court on the basis of diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. The relevant federal statute provides that a federal court possesses diversity jurisdiction if the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The statute further provides that a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.

In seeking removal, Hertz argued that diversity jurisdiction was appropriate because the plaintiffs and the defendant were citizens of different states and more than $75,000 was in controversy. The plaintiffs contended, however, that Hertz was a California citizen (just as they were) and that the case should therefore remain in state court. Hertz submitted a declaration meant to demonstrate that its principal place of business was in New Jersey rather than in California. Besides stressing that Hertz was a national operation with car rental locations in 44 states, the declaration recited a series of statistics indicating that California accounted for approximately 20 percent of Hertzs rental locations, full-time employees, annual revenue, and annual car rental transactions. The declaration also listed Park Ridge, New Jersey, as the location of Hertzs corporate headquarters and stated that Hertzs core executive and administrative functions are conducted there.