What would prevent an accounting firm from establishing subject-matter jurisdiction in a federal court?

The establishment of subject-matter jurisdiction in federal courts often requires meeting specific criteria, particularly in cases involving diversity jurisdiction. For a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be citizens of different states and the amount in controversy must exceed a specified threshold.

In this context, if the accounting firm fails to demonstrate diversity of citizenship, it means that the firm has not shown that the parties involved are from different states, which is crucial for federal courts to exercise jurisdiction based on diversity. If the parties are from the same state, the federal court would not have the necessary basis to exercise jurisdiction over the matter.

While factors such as incorporation in a particular state, compliance with local court rules, or the quality of legal representation can affect various aspects of a case, they do not directly impact the fundamental issue of subject-matter jurisdiction in the same way that a lack of diversity does. Therefore, not being able to prove diversity of citizenship directly precludes the firm from establishing subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court.