The Lima Jevremovic lawsuit most people are asking about is Jevremovic v. Courville, a federal defamation case she and her company AURA filed in New Jersey against YouTube commentator Brittany “BJ” Courville over Courville’s videos about the guardianship of former Jackass star Bam Margera. On July 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi dismissed the case with prejudice after five rounds of pleadings failed to state a viable claim.1GovInfo. Jevremovic v. Courville, Civil Action No. 22-4969 (D.N.J. July 11, 2025) No monetary judgment or sanctions were imposed against her.2CourtListener. Jevremovic v. Courville Docket
Who Jevremovic Is and Why She Sued
Jevremovic is the founder of Autonomous User Rehabilitation Agent, LLC (AURA), a digital health startup that uses virtual reality tools in mental health and addiction treatment. She became publicly known through her role in the legal guardianship of Brandon “Bam” Margera, who has struggled with substance abuse and bipolar disorder since at least 2009. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Jevremovic led Margera’s conservatorship and was using AURA’s VR technology to treat his addiction.3The Hollywood Reporter. Jackass’ Bam Margera Conservatorship: Curious Case Of
Courville is a former Big Law attorney who built a YouTube following covering the #FreeBritney movement and other high-profile guardianship disputes.4GoFundMe. Facts Ain’t Defamation Fund On her channel, “That Surprise Witness,” Courville questioned Margera’s guardianship and accused Jevremovic of, among other things, “setting up” Margera to be arrested and forced into treatment and using a conservatorship to gain access to his finances.1GovInfo. Jevremovic v. Courville, Civil Action No. 22-4969 (D.N.J. July 11, 2025) Jevremovic maintained that Margera was under a guardianship, not a conservatorship, and that Courville either knew or recklessly disregarded the difference.
The suit was filed August 8, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and initially alleged libel, assault, and slander.2CourtListener. Jevremovic v. Courville Docket Over the next two years, the complaint was amended four times, eventually adding producer Prem Benipal and That Surprise Witness TV LLC as defendants and expanding to ten counts including intrusion upon seclusion, false light, harassment, cyber-harassment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and unfair competition.5GovInfo. Jevremovic v. Courville, Civil Action No. 22-4969 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2024)
Why the Defamation Claims Failed
Applying a three-factor test under New Jersey law that examines content, verifiability, and context, Judge Quraishi found the context of Courville’s videos decisive.6CaseMine. Jevremovic v. Courville, Civil Action No. 22-4969 (D.N.J. Aug. 10, 2023) She posted on social media platforms the court described as “forums that welcome opinions and candor.” She branded herself a “Legal Edutainer,” disclaimed that her commentary was legal advice, called her own statements “theories,” and referred to herself as a “conspiracy theorist.” Given those disclaimers and the nature of the platforms, the court held her statements were “mere insults and rhetorical hyperbole” rather than assertions of verifiable fact.5GovInfo. Jevremovic v. Courville, Civil Action No. 22-4969 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2024)
The court also ruled that Jevremovic qualified as a “limited-purpose public figure” because of her role in Margera’s guardianship. That meant she had to plead “actual malice,” showing Courville knew her statements were false or published them with reckless disregard for the truth. The court found allegations about improper motives or failure to fact-check too conclusory to meet that standard.6CaseMine. Jevremovic v. Courville, Civil Action No. 22-4969 (D.N.J. Aug. 10, 2023)
What Happened to the Other Claims
The non-defamation counts fared no better. The harassment and cyber-harassment claims were dismissed with prejudice in August 2024 because New Jersey law does not create a private civil right of action under those criminal statutes. The emotional distress claims fell short of the “extreme and outrageous” conduct standard. The intrusion-upon-seclusion claim failed because the plaintiffs did not adequately allege the defendants themselves obtained private information through wrongful means.5GovInfo. Jevremovic v. Courville, Civil Action No. 22-4969 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2024)
The Final Dismissal With Prejudice
After the August 2024 dismissals, the court granted limited leave to amend only those claims dismissed without prejudice. Jevremovic and AURA filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, but the court found they had again failed to fix the identified defects and had added unauthorized new claims exceeding the scope of the leave granted. On July 11, 2025, Judge Quraishi dismissed the entire case with prejudice, concluding that after five pleadings, further amendment would be futile.1GovInfo. Jevremovic v. Courville, Civil Action No. 22-4969 (D.N.J. July 11, 2025)
The Separate Lawsuit Against Bam Margera
Months after the Courville litigation ended, Jevremovic filed a separate federal lawsuit directly against Margera. Lima Jevremovic v. Brandon Bam Margera (No. 2:25-cv-12027) was filed December 18, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and listed the nature of the suit as assault, libel, and slander. The specific factual allegations are not publicly detailed in available records.7PACER Monitor. Lima Jevremovic v. Brandon Bam Margera
On March 3, 2026, Judge Mark C. Scarsi dismissed that case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and venue, noting the dismissal did not prevent Jevremovic from pursuing her claims in an appropriate court.7PACER Monitor. Lima Jevremovic v. Brandon Bam Margera Whether she has refiled elsewhere is not established in available records.