De Azevedo v. Bogomaz, 1:24-cv-00420

Plaintiff Paulo De Azevedo initially filed suit in Hawaii state court against Defendant Anna Bogomaz.
The dispute involves alleged breach of an operating agreement and redirection of business proceeds from a jointly-owned surf school business.
Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the case to federal court, asserting federal jurisdiction based on website and copyright issues.
Both parties are residents of Hawaii and co-owners of I Surf Hawaii Surf School LLC, operating Kahu Surf School.
Plaintiff sought injunctive relief, remedies for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, an accounting, and inspection of business records.
The federal court directed briefing on whether federal jurisdiction existed before any other motions would be considered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal-question jurisdiction	No federal claim present; case is about contract	Website and copyright issues create federal claim	No federal-question jurisdiction exists
Diversity jurisdiction	Both parties are Hawaii residents	Not directly addressed	No diversity jurisdiction exists
Jurisdiction based on counterclaim	Counterclaim cannot create federal jurisdiction	Counterclaim (website & copyright) creates claim	Counterclaims cannot confer federal jurisdiction
Proper forum for breach of contract suit	State court is proper for contract dispute	Claims cover federal issues due to website	State court is proper; remand required

Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (federal courts have limited jurisdiction defined by statute)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (federal courts need a statutory basis for jurisdiction)
Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (counterclaims cannot serve as the basis for federal-question jurisdiction)
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435 (outlines federal-question and diversity jurisdiction requirements)