1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 JULIE POSTMA, et al. 9 Plaintiff, NO. 2:25-CV-02036-SAB 10 v. 11 CAROLYNN COMSTOCK, et al., ORDER GRANTING MOTION 12 Defendants. TO DISMISS; REMANDING 13 ACTION 14 15 Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Julie Postma and Kathleen DeMaria and 16 Third-party City of Seattle’ Defendant’s Stipulated Motion for Order Clarifying 17 Removal, ECF No. 15, Third-party Defendant Google, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, 18 ECF No. 10, Third-party City of Seattle Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 19 16, and Third-party Defendant LinkedIn’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 25. The 20 motions were heard without oral argument. Plaintiffs Julie Postma and Kathleen 21 Demaria are represented by Martin Burns. Third-party City of Seattle Defendants 22 are represented by Catherine E. Riedo and Dallas LePierre. Third -party Defendant 23 Linkedin Corp. is represented by Nicole Demon. Third-party Defendant Google 24 LLC is represented by Erin Earl. Defendants/Third-party Plaintiffs Carolynn 25 Comstock and Jim Owen are representing themselves in this matter. 26 Underlying Facts 27 On October 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in King County Superior 28 Court against Defendants/Third-party Plaintiffs Carolynn Comstock and Jim Owen 1 for breach of lease. Apparently, Defendants/Third-party plaintiffs were evicted 2 from property owned by Plaintiffs. Judgment as entered for a writ of restitution, 3 judgment for rents in the amount of $4,791.84, attorney fees in the amount of 4 $1,515 and costs in the amount of $506.47. After Plaintiff obtained possession of 5 the property, Plaintiffs discovered extensive damage. Plaintiffs sued for 6 $37,065.71. Then, Ingrid Johnson filed a pro se counterclaim in that case, alleging 7 the Seattle Public School unlawfully and malicious refused to provide mandatory 8 information for the recovery of a minor, and committed RICO violations, 9 obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting kidnapping, fraud, wire and mail fraud 10 and racketeering. 11 Then, Defendants/Third-party Plaintiffs Comstock and Owen filed 12 counterclaims against Plaintiffs and additional Third-party Defendants that 13 seemingly were involved in a custody dispute involving their grandchildren. They 14 named a number of corporations, including Apple, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, 15 OpenAI, Inc., Meta and Google for possible surveillance violations and other 16 alleged bad conduct. They indicated they were bringing claims for RICO 17 violations, Wiretap Act Violations, Conspiracy Against Rights, Fraud and 18 Mortgage/Tax Fraud, Civil Rights Violations, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986), 19 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Digital Surveillance, Behavioral 20 Manipulation, Privacy Violations, money laundering, and any additional claims 21 proven at trial. They then filed an amended complaint adding additional 22 corporations, including Amazon.com, TikTok, and LinkedIn. 23 Then, they filed an Amended Answer and added more defendants, including 24 King County prosecutors and judges—asserting claims regarding the “illegal 25 eviction, kidnapping and ongoing deprivation of custody of their daughter and 26 grandson—and filed another document that purportedly added new third-party 27 28 1Postma et al. v. Comstock, et al., Case No. 25-2-15751-2. 1 defendants and asserted RICO violations. Then they filed an Amended Counter- 2 Complaint adding Corporation Service Co as a Third-party Defendant. 3 Then, they filed another Amended Countercomplaint, adding multiple Third- 4 party Defendants and adding Ingrid Johnson as a Counter-complaintant, It appears 5 Ms. Johnson is Ms. Comstock’s daughter. Another document was filed by Third- 6 party Plaintiffs Comstock and Owen, and it added King County Employees for 7 RICO violations. Finally, another document was filed addressing the Seattle Public 8 School alleged new RICO violations. 9 The Third-party City of Seattle Defendants removed this action to the 10 Western District of Washington because Third-party Plaintiffs Comstock and 11 Owen asserted counterclaims against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12 Motion Standard 13 To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege 14 “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. 15 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face when “the 16 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 17 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 18 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). As the Ninth Circuit explained: 19 To be entitled to the presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint 20 or counterclaim may not simply recite the elements ofissed a cause of action but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to 21 give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself 22 effectively. The factual allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to 23 require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery 24 and continued litigation. 25 Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). 26 When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must draw all reasonable 27 inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 28 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the court is not required to accept 1 conclusory allegations as true or to accept any unreasonable inferences in a 2 complaint. In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2008). 3 Third-party Defendant Google’s Motion to Dismiss 4 Third-party Defendant Google asks to be dismissed from this action because 5 it has no connection to the lease dispute at issue in this action. It also asserts it was 6 not properly served, it is not a proper Third-party Defendant, Third-party Plaintiffs 7 waited over fifty days after filing their answer to file third-party claims, but never 8 sought leave of court to do so, and finally, Third-party Plaintiffs failed to state a 9 claim upon which relief may be granted. 10 Third-party Plaintiffs Comstock and Owen did not file a response. 11 For the reasons presented in the motion, the Court grants the motion and 12 dismisses Third-party Defendant Google from this action. 13 Third-party City of Seattle Defendants 14 Third-party City of Seattle Defendants ask the Court to dismiss them from 15 this action because Third-party Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient factual 16 allegations that could plausibly suggest some liability on the part of the City of 17 Seattle Defendants. The Court agrees. 18 Third-party Plaintiffs Comstock and Owen did not file a response. Third- 19 party City of Seattle Defendants are dismissed from this action because Third-party 20 Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 21 Third-party Defendant LinkedIn’s Motion to Dismiss 22 Third-party Defendant LinkedIn asks to be dismissed from this action 23 because of insufficient service of process; it is an improper party in this action, the 24 Third-party Plaintiffs lack article III standing, the Third-party Plaintiffs’ 25 complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and their 26 complaint should be dismissed because they are acting as puppets for Ingrid 27 Johnson, who is subject to a vexatious litigant order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 JULIE POSTMA, et al. 9 Plaintiff, NO. 2:25-CV-02036-SAB 10 v. 11 CAROLYNN COMSTOCK, et al., ORDER GRANTING MOTION 12 Defendants. TO DISMISS; REMANDING 13 ACTION 14 15 Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Julie Postma and Kathleen DeMaria and 16 Third-party City of Seattle’ Defendant’s Stipulated Motion for Order Clarifying 17 Removal, ECF No. 15, Third-party Defendant Google, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, 18 ECF No. 10, Third-party City of Seattle Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 19 16, and Third-party Defendant LinkedIn’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 25. The 20 motions were heard without oral argument. Plaintiffs Julie Postma and Kathleen 21 Demaria are represented by Martin Burns. Third-party City of Seattle Defendants 22 are represented by Catherine E. Riedo and Dallas LePierre. Third -party Defendant 23 Linkedin Corp. is represented by Nicole Demon. Third-party Defendant Google 24 LLC is represented by Erin Earl. Defendants/Third-party Plaintiffs Carolynn 25 Comstock and Jim Owen are representing themselves in this matter. 26 Underlying Facts 27 On October 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in King County Superior 28 Court against Defendants/Third-party Plaintiffs Carolynn Comstock and Jim Owen 1 for breach of lease. Apparently, Defendants/Third-party plaintiffs were evicted 2 from property owned by Plaintiffs. Judgment as entered for a writ of restitution, 3 judgment for rents in the amount of $4,791.84, attorney fees in the amount of 4 $1,515 and costs in the amount of $506.47. After Plaintiff obtained possession of 5 the property, Plaintiffs discovered extensive damage. Plaintiffs sued for 6 $37,065.71. Then, Ingrid Johnson filed a pro se counterclaim in that case, alleging 7 the Seattle Public School unlawfully and malicious refused to provide mandatory 8 information for the recovery of a minor, and committed RICO violations, 9 obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting kidnapping, fraud, wire and mail fraud 10 and racketeering. 11 Then, Defendants/Third-party Plaintiffs Comstock and Owen filed 12 counterclaims against Plaintiffs and additional Third-party Defendants that 13 seemingly were involved in a custody dispute involving their grandchildren. They 14 named a number of corporations, including Apple, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, 15 OpenAI, Inc., Meta and Google for possible surveillance violations and other 16 alleged bad conduct. They indicated they were bringing claims for RICO 17 violations, Wiretap Act Violations, Conspiracy Against Rights, Fraud and 18 Mortgage/Tax Fraud, Civil Rights Violations, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986), 19 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Digital Surveillance, Behavioral 20 Manipulation, Privacy Violations, money laundering, and any additional claims 21 proven at trial. They then filed an amended complaint adding additional 22 corporations, including Amazon.com, TikTok, and LinkedIn. 23 Then, they filed an Amended Answer and added more defendants, including 24 King County prosecutors and judges—asserting claims regarding the “illegal 25 eviction, kidnapping and ongoing deprivation of custody of their daughter and 26 grandson—and filed another document that purportedly added new third-party 27 28 1Postma et al. v. Comstock, et al., Case No. 25-2-15751-2. 1 defendants and asserted RICO violations. Then they filed an Amended Counter- 2 Complaint adding Corporation Service Co as a Third-party Defendant. 3 Then, they filed another Amended Countercomplaint, adding multiple Third- 4 party Defendants and adding Ingrid Johnson as a Counter-complaintant, It appears 5 Ms. Johnson is Ms. Comstock’s daughter. Another document was filed by Third- 6 party Plaintiffs Comstock and Owen, and it added King County Employees for 7 RICO violations. Finally, another document was filed addressing the Seattle Public 8 School alleged new RICO violations. 9 The Third-party City of Seattle Defendants removed this action to the 10 Western District of Washington because Third-party Plaintiffs Comstock and 11 Owen asserted counterclaims against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12 Motion Standard 13 To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege 14 “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. 15 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face when “the 16 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 17 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 18 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). As the Ninth Circuit explained: 19 To be entitled to the presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint 20 or counterclaim may not simply recite the elements ofissed a cause of action but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to 21 give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself 22 effectively. The factual allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to 23 require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery 24 and continued litigation. 25 Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). 26 When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must draw all reasonable 27 inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 28 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the court is not required to accept 1 conclusory allegations as true or to accept any unreasonable inferences in a 2 complaint. In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2008). 3 Third-party Defendant Google’s Motion to Dismiss 4 Third-party Defendant Google asks to be dismissed from this action because 5 it has no connection to the lease dispute at issue in this action. It also asserts it was 6 not properly served, it is not a proper Third-party Defendant, Third-party Plaintiffs 7 waited over fifty days after filing their answer to file third-party claims, but never 8 sought leave of court to do so, and finally, Third-party Plaintiffs failed to state a 9 claim upon which relief may be granted. 10 Third-party Plaintiffs Comstock and Owen did not file a response. 11 For the reasons presented in the motion, the Court grants the motion and 12 dismisses Third-party Defendant Google from this action. 13 Third-party City of Seattle Defendants 14 Third-party City of Seattle Defendants ask the Court to dismiss them from 15 this action because Third-party Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient factual 16 allegations that could plausibly suggest some liability on the part of the City of 17 Seattle Defendants. The Court agrees. 18 Third-party Plaintiffs Comstock and Owen did not file a response. Third- 19 party City of Seattle Defendants are dismissed from this action because Third-party 20 Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 21 Third-party Defendant LinkedIn’s Motion to Dismiss 22 Third-party Defendant LinkedIn asks to be dismissed from this action 23 because of insufficient service of process; it is an improper party in this action, the 24 Third-party Plaintiffs lack article III standing, the Third-party Plaintiffs’ 25 complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and their 26 complaint should be dismissed because they are acting as puppets for Ingrid 27 Johnson, who is subject to a vexatious litigant order. 28 Third-party Plaintiffs Comstock and Owen did not file a response. 1 For the reasons presented in the motion, the Court grants Third-party 2 Defendant LinkIn’s Motion to Dismiss, and dismisses it from this action. 3 Failure to Serve; Failure to Obtain Leave to Amend 4 There is nothing in the record to indicate that Third-party Plaintiffs properly 5 served the Third-party Defendants. Also, Third-party Plaintiffs failed to obtain 6 leave of the Court to amend their pleadings to add new claims and Third-party 7 Defendants. As such, all Third-party Defendants are dismissed from this action. 8 Remand 9 Given that the third-party Defendants have been dismissed, there are no 10 remaining federal causes of action. The Court no longer has subject matter 11 jurisdiction over this action and it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 12 over any remaining state law claims. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 13 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (cautioning federal courts on exercising jurisdiction over 14 state law claims if federal claims are dismissed). 15 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 16 1. Third-party Defendant Google’s Inc. Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10, is 17 GRANTED. 18 2. Third-party Defendant City of Seattle’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16, 19 is GRANTED. 20 3. Third-party Defendant LinkedIn’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 25, is 21 GRANTED. 22 4. Plaintiffs’ Julie Postma and Kathleen DeMaria and the Defendant City of 23 Seattle’s Stipulated Motion for Order Clarifying Removal, ECF No. 15, is 24 DENIED, as moot. 25 5. All other pending motions are dismissed, as moot. 26 6. All Third-Party Defendants are dismissed. 27 // 28 // 1 7. The above-captioned action is remanded to King County Superior Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 3|| this Order, provide copies to the pro se parties and counsel, and close the file. DATED this 26th day of January 2026. 5 ~ sin 8 Stanley A. Bastian 9 District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS; REMANDING ACTION