If a homeowner's contract for remodeling involves a designer in a different district than the architect, what is the likely jurisdictional issue?

The issue of jurisdiction in this context arises from the concept of diversity jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear cases where the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds a specified threshold. In the scenario where a homeowner's remodeling contract involves a designer in a different district from the architect, the residency of the designer plays a significant role in determining whether a federal court would have jurisdiction over the case.

When the designer resides in a different district than the architect, it creates a potential for diversity between the parties, depending on the states involved. However, if the designer's residency is in the same state as the homeowner, this may negate federal jurisdiction because diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties. Therefore, the correct choice highlights how the designer’s residency could impact the availability of federal jurisdiction, specifically if it creates a situation where all parties are not diverse as required for federal jurisdiction to apply.

This understanding hinges on the principles of jurisdiction vis-à-vis the residents involved in the contracting parties. Hence, the statement reflecting the designer's residency preventing federal jurisdiction is pertinent because it addresses the jurisdictional criteria governing whether a federal court can hear the case based on the diversity of citizenship.