Sarah v. Jackson, No. 3:25-cv-05594-JHC (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Sarah & Regina Alonso v. Jackson
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2026
Disposition
Motion Granted
SARAH and REGINA ALONSO, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES JACKSON,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 747745Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, W.D. Washington.SARAH and REGINA ALONSO, Plaintiffs,v.JAMES JACKSON, also known online as“ONISION,” LUCAS JACKSON, formerlyknown online as “LAINEYBOT,” “LAINEY”and “KAI,” and NESIAMOTU, Inc., Defendants.CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05594-JHC|03/17/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsLisa D. Haba, Pro Hac Vice, The Haba Law Firm, P.A.,Longwood, FL, Margaret Elizabeth Mabie, Pro Hac Vice,James R. Marsh, Robert Y. Lewis, Marsh Law Firm PLLC,New York, NY, Susanna Southworth, Restore the ChildPLLC, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff Sarah.Lisa D. Haba, Pro Hac Vice, The Haba Law Firm, P.A.,Longwood, FL, Margaret Elizabeth Mabie, Pro Hac Vice,James R. Marsh, Robert Y. Lewis, Marsh Law Firm PLLC,New York, NY, Jennifer Freeman, Freeman Lewis LLP, LongIsland City, NY, Susanna Southworth, Restore the ChildPLLC, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff Regina Alonso.James Jackson, Puyallup, WA, Pro Se.Lucas Jackson, Puyallup, WA, Pro Se.Andrew Grant Ried-Munro, Erik L. Halverson, HalversonLaw Group, Normandy Park, WA, for Defendant Nesiamotu,Inc.ORDERI INTRODUCTION*1 This matter comes before the Court on DefendantNesiamotu, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss. See Dkt. # 239. TheCourt has considered the materials filed in support of and inopposition to the motion, pertinent portions of the record, andthe applicable law. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTSthe motion and DISMISSES the claims again Nesiamotuwithout prejudice.II BACKGROUNDThe following background derives from Plaintiffs’Consolidated Third Amended Complaint (CTAC). See Dkt. #193.Defendant James Jackson operated a YouTube channel underthe moniker “Onision,” alongside his now-spouse DefendantLucas Jackson, who went by the online names “Laineybot,”“Lainey,” or “Kai.”1 Dkt. # 193 ¶¶ 69–70. Dkt. # 193 ¶¶69–70. “Onision” is also a trademark owned by DefendantNesiamotu, Inc., a Washington State corporation formed in2018 that Defendants used to operate their YouTube channel.Id. 71. James Jackson has operated the “Onision” YouTubeaccount since January 2006. Id. 150. This YouTube account“targeted underage girls and provided content that appealed tothat age group, such as comments on body image, appearance,self-identity, suicide ideology and similar topics.” Id. 152.James Jackson also began operating online forums, which hepromoted in his videos to boost his fandom. Id. 187.Plaintiffs Regina Alonso and “Sarah” (a pseudonym, see Dkt.# 13) are residents of Florida and Michigan respectively. Dkt.# 193 ¶¶ 60–63. Both Plaintiffs say that they became fansof the Onision YouTube content when they were minors. SeeDkt. # 193 ¶¶ 205–207 (Plaintiff Regina), id. 245 (PlaintiffSarah). They say that they began interacting with Lainey viavarious online networks like Instagram or Twitter. See 193 207 (Plaintiff Regina), id. 245 (Plaintiff Sarah). Plaintiffssay that the online relationship became sexually suggestive,and that they and Lainey would discuss sexual topics. Id.¶¶ 228, 256, 258–60, 262. Plaintiff Regina says that Laineywould request and receive nude photographs from her whenshe was a minor. Id. ¶¶ 230, 233–234. She says that theJackson Defendants, in 2015 (when she was a minor), thenoffered to pay for her travel expenses to Washington state,id. ¶¶ 236–37, but that her mother did not permit her to sotravel. Id. 240. Plaintiff Sarah says that she, when stilla minor, flew to Washington several times to be with theJackson Defendants at their expense, id. ¶¶ 56, 287, 305–06, 308, 310, 331, and that during these trips, Onision, andat times Lainey, would physically touch Sarah in a sexualmanner. Id. ¶¶ 291–97, 303. When Plaintiff Sarah turned 18in August 2018, she traveled back to Defendants’ residence,where Defendants forced her into a sexual encounter. Id. ¶¶
SARAH and REGINA ALONSO, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES JACKSON,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2344–66. She says she was then coerced into signing an NDAbefore returning to Michigan. Id. ¶¶ 369, 374. Sarah madethree more visits in 2019. Id. ¶¶ 378–79, 382. Later thatyear, after her final visit, Onision began posting videos onlinestating that Sarah had sexually assaulted him and was alsoblackmailing him. Id. ¶¶ 384, 390–91, 396.*2 In 2023, Plaintiffs filed separate suits against Google, itssubsidiary YouTube (collectively, the YouTube Defendants),and the Jackson Defendants in Florida and Michigan. Bothcases were transferred to separate courts in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of California. InMay 2024, Plaintiffs filed coordinated Second AmendedComplaints in the separate suits. See Dkt. # 122 at 1, 13¶¶ 66–72 (naming the YouTube and Jackson Defendants inthe Second Amended Complaint). It was not until the ThirdAmended Complaint (not the CTAC), filed February 2025,that Plaintiffs named Defendant Nesiamotu. See Dkt. # 182 at1, 13 71. Soon after, in March 2025, Judge James Donatoof that District ordered the consolidation of Plaintiffs’ cases,see Dkt. # 189, and terminated various pending motions todismiss. See Dkt. # 190. Then, in April 2025, Plaintiffs filedthe CTAC, which also names Defendant Nesiamotu. See Dkt.# 193 at 12, 71.On June 24, 2025, the court in the Northern Districtof California granted the YouTube Defendants’ motion todismiss and transferred the case to this District. See Dkt. #210. And on February 4th, 2026, this Court granted in part andotherwise denied the Jackson Defendants’ motion to dismissthe CTAC, dismissing only Count III. See Dkt. # 257 at 17.Nesiamotu now moves to dismiss the CTAC under FederalRules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6).See Dkt. # 239. Nesiamotu also moves for judgment onthe pleadings under Rule 12(c). Id. Nesiamotu contendsthat (1) this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over theclaims against it, (2) Plaintiffs failed to serve it properly,and (3) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim. See generally id. Last,Nesiamotu says that it should be severed as a misjoined partyunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. See Dkt. # 239 at17–19.III DISCUSSIONA. Subject Matter JurisdictionUnder Rule 12(b)(1), a defendant may move for dismissal forlack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A district court may notentertain a suit if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over theaction. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006);see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determinesat any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the courtmust dismiss the action.”).Federal question jurisdiction gives district courts originaljurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under theConstitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.§ 1331. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction gives districtcourts original jurisdiction over all civil actions in whichthe matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and, as pertinenthere, is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden ofestablishing [it].” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561(1992).Nesiamotu brings a facial attack on jurisdiction under Rule12(b)(1). “In a facial attack, the [defendant] asserts thatthe allegations contained in [the] complaint are insufficienton their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe Air forEveryone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). Inresolving such an attack, the court must accept the plaintiff'sallegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in theirfavor. Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014).Nesiamotu contends that the Court lacks subject matterjurisdiction because Plaintiffs plead only federal TVPRAand Masha's Law claims against Nesiamotu, and but sincethey fail to state those claims, the Court lacks subject matterjurisdiction. See Dkt. 239 at 9–10. Plaintiffs respond thatthey do not fail to state their federal law claims, and evenso, the parties are in complete diversity and the amount incontroversy exceeds $75,000, so the Court possesses subjectmatter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Dkt. # 249 at 15.Nesiamotu does not rebut these points.The CTAC sufficiently alleges the parties are in completediversity. See Dkt. # 193 ¶¶ 60, 62 (Plaintiffs are citizens ofFlorida and Michigan respectively); id. ¶¶ 69–71 (JacksonDefendants and Nesiamotu are citizens of Washington). Andthe CTAC alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds$75,000. See id. 78. Thus, the Court possesses subject matterjurisdiction. Plaintiffs need demonstrate only one of the twobases for subject matter jurisdiction. Cf. Chey v. JPMorganChase Bank, N.A., 2024 WL 5202775, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec.23, 2024) (court had federal question jurisdiction and thisdid not need diversity jurisdiction to exercise subject matterjurisdiction).
SARAH and REGINA ALONSO, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES JACKSON,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3B. Service of Process*3 Under Rule 12(b)(5), a defendant may assert as adefense improper service of process. “Once a defendantchallenges service of process, the plaintiff bears the burden ofestablishing the validity of service of process.” Wick Towing,Inc. v. Northland, 2016 WL 3461587, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June21, 2016). “Where service of process is insufficient, the courthas broad discretion to dismiss the action or to retain the casebut quash the service that has been made on defendant.” Clarkv. Washington State Dep't of Health, 735 F. Supp. 3d 1334,1349 (W.D. Wash. 2024) (citing S.J. v. Issaquah Sch. Dist.No. 411, 470 F.3d 1288, 1293 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citationomitted).Nesiamotu contends that Plaintiffs failed to effect properservice of process because they served the complaint andsummons in person on James Jackson, who is not Nesiamotu'sregistered agent, at the Jackson residence. Dkt. # 239 at11; Dkt. # 222 at 1 (proof of service). Lucas Jackson saysthat Nesiamotu is its own registered agent and provides astreet address for the entity, the same address as the Jacksonresidence. Dkt. # 239-3 6. Nesiamotu argues that becausePlaintiffs did not attempt to serve the registered agent, theycannot effect alternative service of process under Washingtonlaw, since they cannot show that Nesiamotu's registered agent(itself) “cannot with reasonable diligence be served.” Id.(citing RCW 23.95.450).Plaintiffs agree that Nesiamotu lists itself as its registeredagent. See Dkt. # 249 at 15– 16; see also Dkt. # 249-1 at4 (Washington Secretary of State “annual report” filing inwhich Nesiamotu lists itself as the registered agent at samestreet address as in Lucas Jackson's declaration at Dkt. # 239-3 6)). But Plaintiffs say that Nesiamotu may not list itself asits own registered agent and, as a result the law permits thatalternative service in such a situation. Dkt. # 249 at 16 (citingRCW § 23.95.450). In addition to delivering the complaintand summons to James Jackson personally, Plaintiffs mailedthe complaint and summons to Nesiamotu's listed address.Dkt. # 222 at 1 (proof of service indicating that summons wasmailed); id. at Dkt. # 222-1 (declaration of mailing).One way a plaintiff may serve a corporate defendant is “inthe manner prescribed by [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure]4(e)(1) for serving an individual[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1).Serving process on an individual follows the rules of thestate where the district court is located. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). In Washington, a corporation (or “represented entity,”in the statute's terms) like Nesiamotu may be served “byserving its registered agent,” or, if the corporation eitherlacks a registered agent or the registered agent “cannot withreasonable diligence be served,” then “the entity may beserved by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested,or by similar commercial delivery service, addressed to theentity at the entity's principal office.” RCW 23.95.450.RCW 23.95.415, which provides for the designation ofregistered agents by corporations, “does not contain languageauthorizing a corporation to name itself its own registeredagent.” Cf. Patanella v. Aerocet Inc., 2021 WL 9626210, at*2–4 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 24, 2021) (Estudillo, J.) (concludingthe plaintiffs properly served the defendant corporation byserving its most recently listed registered agent even thoughcorporation had named itself as registered agent three yearsbefore suit). Thus, Nesiamotu lacked a legally cognizableregistered agent when Plaintiffs sought to serve process.Accordingly, Plaintiffs could serve process by “registeredor certified mail” at the “address of the principal office...asshown in the entity's most recent annual report filed by thesecretary of state.” RCW § 23.95.450. But Plaintiffs did notdo so. See Dkt. # 222-1 (showing mailing to same addressas that listed in Nesiamotu's secretary of state annual report).Plaintiffs apparently attempted to served process via regularfirst-class mail and not registered or certified mail, returnreceipt requested. And while Plaintiffs suggest that personalservice on James Jackson satisfies the statute because he is an“admitted owner of the company,” Dkt. # 249 at 16, Plaintiffspoint to no authority permitting service on a corporation byserving its owner, even assuming that James Jackson is in factthe owner.*4 Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to properly serve Nesiamotu.And as this case has been pending since 2023, and Nesiamotuwas named as a defendant over a year ago, the Courtexercises its discretion to dismiss the claims against it withoutprejudice.2 3C. Citation to nonexistent legal authorityOn reply, Nesiamotu notes that one case cited by Plaintiffin support of leave to amend at Dkt. # 249 at 17, “Allenv. Bayshore Mall, No. C03-4522, 2006 WL 2520427, at *7(W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2006)” does not exist. Dkt. # 255at 9–10. Nesiamotu suspects that the case may have beenconfabulated by generative artificial intelligence (AI) becausethere are two Allen v. Bayshore Mall cases from the NorthernDistrict of California: 2013 WL 6441504 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9,2013) (granting leave to amend) and 2014 WL 1647622 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 23, 2014) (denying summary judgment). Id. They
SARAH and REGINA ALONSO, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES JACKSON,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4do not request any relief in connection with this potentiallyfake case.Whether or not generative AI was used, “[c]iting nonexistentcase law or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is makinga false statement to a court.” United States v. Hayes, 763F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1067 (E.D. Cal. 2025), reconsiderationdenied, 2025 WL 1067323 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2025) (citationomitted). Such conduct is sanctionable. Id. at 1071.The Court agrees that the “Allen v. Bayshore Mall” case citedby Plaintiffs cannot be located online and that circumstancessuggest, but do not prove, the possibility of improperoversight of generative artificial intelligence or another toolgenerating text from a large language model. As stated,the submission of misleading legal authority is grounds forsanctions under Rule 11. See Benshoof v. Chin, 2025 WL1414055, at *4, n.3 (W.D. Wash. May 15, 2025). The Courtwarns Plaintiffs’ counsel that it will issue an order to showcause why sanctions should not issue if they again submitfictitious legal authority. See, e.g., Dkt. # 129, Medal v.Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 2:23-cv-01975-JHC (W.D.Wash. March 4, 2026) (granting the defendant's motionto show cause relating to use of fictitious legal authoritygenerated by AI).IV CONCLUSION*5 For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Nesiamotu'smotion, Dkt. # 239, and DISMISSES the claims againstNesiamotu without prejudice for insufficiency of process. If,notwithstanding this ruling, Plaintiffs consider seeking reliefto keep Nesiamotu as a defendant in this matter, the Courtcautions them to review (1) the requirements for service ofprocess; (2) any limitations periods that may apply; and (3)the discussion above why the CTAC fails to state a claimagainst Nesiamotu. The Court DENIES as moot Nesiamotu'srequest to sever the claims.Editor's Note: Tabular or graphical material not displayableat this time.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 747745Footnotes1When referring to Defendants individually, this order uses interchangeably James Jackson and “Onision,”and Lucas Jackson and “Lainey.” When referring to James and Lucas Jackson collectively, this order uses“the Jackson Defendants” or “Defendants.”2Even if Plaintiffs had properly served Nesiamotu, it appears that the CTAC fails to state a claim against theentity. Plaintiffs’ argument regarding successor liability principles do not excuse the requirement that theyplead facts about Nesiamotu. The sole allegations about Nesiamotu, which appears only three times in theCTAC, are:71. Defendant Nesiamotu, Inc. is a Washington State corporation which at all times relevant to this case,was owned and operated by James and/or Lucas Jackson. Nesiamotu was formed on February 12, 2018and upon information and belief, was the corporation that Onision and Lainey used to publish their contenton YouTube. The “Onision” name trademark is owned by Nesiamotu, Inc.Dkt. # 193 71. Outside this paragraph, Nesiamotu is not mentioned in the CTAC. Plaintiffs do not, forexample, allege that Nesiamotu is some sort of alter ego for the Jackson Defendants or that the Nesiamotucorporate entity itself participated in or was otherwise connected to Plaintiff Sarah's trafficking. Nor do theyallege facts that would give rise to successor liability. Without further facts, Plaintiffs’ invocation of successorliability principles amounts to an impermissible attempt to use such a theory to survive a motion to dismiss.
SARAH and REGINA ALONSO, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES JACKSON,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.53Nesiamotu also contends that it should be severed from the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure21 because Plaintiffs cannot show that they meet the requirements for joinder under Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 20. SeeDkt. # 239 at 17–19. But this issue is moot, as the Court is granting Nesiamotu's motionto dismiss.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access