What is the likely outcome when an entrepreneur from State A sues a website owner in State B in a State A federal court regarding an advertising contract?

When considering the scenario where an entrepreneur from State A sues a website owner in State B in a federal court situated in State A regarding an advertising contract, the correct outcome hinges on the principles of federal jurisdiction. For a federal court to have jurisdiction, the matter must either involve a federal question or meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

In this case, unless the advertising contract involves a federal question or impacts interstate commerce in a way that invokes federal law, the case does not fall under federal jurisdiction. The mere existence of a contract dispute typically does not create a federal question sufficient to establish jurisdiction in federal court. Since the case is fundamentally about a breach of contract—an issue usually governed by state law—the federal court would likely grant the motion for lack of federal question jurisdiction, meaning there is no basis for the federal court to hear the case.

Remanding to a state court or denying the motion for breach of contract would not be appropriate in this context. Ignoring the motion due to jurisdiction issues likewise misrepresents the court's obligation to evaluate its jurisdiction before proceeding with a case. Thus, recognizing the lack of a federal question is key here, leading to the correct conclusion.