Which of the following typically does NOT qualify for diversity jurisdiction?

Diversity jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear cases where the parties are citizens of different states or a citizen of a state is opposed to a citizen of a foreign country, provided the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The focus of diversity jurisdiction is to provide a neutral forum for parties that might otherwise face bias in state courts.

In the context of the options provided, claims under local government ordinances generally do not qualify for diversity jurisdiction. This is because such cases typically arise under state law rather than federal law, and they usually involve parties that are citizens of the same state. Therefore, they do not meet the requirement of diversity in citizenship that is needed for federal court jurisdiction based on diversity.

On the other hand, claims involving parties from different U.S. states and cases between a U.S. citizen and a foreign citizen do qualify for diversity jurisdiction as long as the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Cases with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 are also pertinent to diversity jurisdiction, as this is a necessary condition for asserting such jurisdiction.

Thus, the option that correctly identifies a scenario that does not qualify for diversity jurisdiction is related to claims under local government ordinances.