Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

JULIET S. SARIOL
, ) No

. 79807

- 3

- I ) Appellant
, )

) DIVISION ONE
v. )

) PAUL G. ALLEN FAMILY ) UN PUBLISHED OPINION FOUNDATION, ) ) Respondent

. )

)

M ANN , C. J.

— Juliet Sariol appeals the trial court’s order dismissing her case with
prejudice. On appeal, Sariol fails to substantively argue how the trial court erred . We

affirm.

I.
On October 24, 2018, Sari ol filed a “Notice of Petition to Restrain Assets” against
the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation (the Foundation) in King County Superior Court.
After this initial filing, Sariol filed an “Emergency Motion for Join der and Judgment on
Partial Finding” and a “Motion for Intervene and Permanent Injunction” several days

later. None of these filings were style d as a complaint or served with a summons.No

. 7 9807

- 3

- I / 2

- 2

-

In her filings, Sariol alleges she was the subject of scientific experimentation
without her consent by the government or military and that devices were secretly
implanted in her body. Sariol contends she was the victim of stalking, harassment,
vandalism, and home invasion. Sariol also discusses suffering from breast cancer and
parasites. In all of these fili ngs, the only allegation th at even closely resembles an
allegation against the Foundation is a reference to Paul Allen, where she alleges “The
case’s involvement to secret Hollywood Agenda hinting conveyance are on e of the
attributions of responsible proje cts that the late Paul Allen himself invested on to his
philanthropic community engagements.” Most of Sariol’s filings are difficult to

understand.
In response, the Foundation filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The Foundation noted that Sariol did not state an articulable claim, did not allege any
specific actions against the Foundation, and disregard ed procedural court rules. Sariol

then filed a “Motion to Stipulate and Enter Objection on Motion to Dismiss the Case,”

which did not respond to the deficiencies identified in her filings by the Foundation

. The trial court heard argument on the Foundation’s motion. The Foundation
explained why the documents filed by Sariol did not present a claim for relief and failed
to comply with CR 4, 8, and 10. Sariol responded by asking the court to accept all her
filings as her “real evidence” and “testimonials.” The trial court clarified that Sariol

wanted the court to accept her filings as her pleadings and explained that evidence

would not be taken because the hearing was on the Foundation’s motion to dismiss:

We’re

— today is a motion to dismiss based on your pleadings, the things that you have filed. I don’t know what is

— what you have in front of you, what kind of documentation you have, but today would not be the day toNo

. 7 9807

- 3

- I / 3

- 3

-

roll that out anew for the first time for the defendant. That’s not how a motion to dismiss works. Sariol responded that she would limit her argument to the motion to dismiss but argued

there were violations of discovery rule s. Sariol explained :

I had cited

— I have cited the defendant in violation of Rule 26 discovery, Rule 26(b) discovery limits to patter n of interrogations or interrogatory

— pattern interrogatory. Which governs in cases where a party has propounded pattern i nterrogatory (indiscernible) interrogator y in pursuant to LCR 33. An d in cases

— B, in cases where now court

- approved pattern interrogatories [ are ] not propounded, (indiscernible) limitation of 40 patter n interrogatory.
During the hearing, Sariol never expl ained her claims against the Foundation. Similarly,

Sariol claimed in her “ E mergency S trict R eply M emoranda and O bjection to D ismiss the

C ase with P rejudice,”
[t]he Foundation which operations of multi

- disciplinary knowledge professions are integrated co mmunity from where plaintiff received treatment of her breast cancer, there is reason to believe that, trier of facts fi nd relevance to order of Habeas Corpus from what she believe [s] is illegal detention or potential “insider trade”, Mandatory relief and Emergency Interim financial assistance of replevin and rescission of orders and law pertained to the plaintiff’s case.
Again, Sariol’s response to the Foundation ’ s motion to dismiss did not address the

deficiencies in her filings identified by the Foundati on

. The trial court dismissed her
case with prejudice.

II.
We review dismissals for failure to state a claim under CR 12(6)(b) de novo.
Nissen v. Pierce County , 183 Wn. App. 581, 589, 333 P.3d 557 (2014). We review
dismissals for insufficient process under CR 12(b)(4) de novo. Jafa r v. Webb , 177
Wn.2d 520, 526, 303 P.3d 1042 (2013).No

. 7 9807

- 3

- I / 4

- 4

-

Under notice pleading standards, a complaint need only contain a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief an d a demand for
judgment for relief

. CR 8(a). A complaint that does not comply with CR 8(a) may be
dismissed for failure to state a claim under CR 12(b)(6). Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys.,

Inc. , 182 Wn. App. 935, 941, 332 P.3d 1085 (2014). We construe a complaint liberal ly
so as to do substantial justice. CR 8(f). “If a complaint states fact s entitling the plaintiff
to some relief, it is immaterial by what name the action is called.” In re Estate of
Dormaier v. Columbia Basin Anesthesia, P.L.L.C. , 177 Wn. App. 828, 853 , 313 P.3d
431 (2013). “But a complaint should adequately alert the defendant of the claim’s
general nature.” Dormaier , 177 Wn. App. at 853

- 54. “A complaint is insufficient if it
does not give the defendant ‘fair notice of what the claim is and the grou nd upon which

it rests.’” Dormaier , 177 Wn. App. at 854.
A pro se litigant is bound by the same rules of procedure and substantive law as

an attorney. In re Marriage of Olson , 69 Wn. App. 621, 626 , 850 P.2d 527 (1993). If a
party fails to support assig nments of error with legal arguments, those assignments of
error will not be considered on appeal. Schmidt v. Cornerstone Inv., Inc. , 115 Wn.2d

148, 160, 895 P.2d 1143 (1990). Further, “[i]t is not the responsibility of this court to
attempt to discern w hat it is appellant may have intended to assert that might somehow

have merit.” Port Susan Chapel of the Woods v. Port Susan Camping Club , 50 Wn.
App. 176, 188, 746 P.2d 816 (1987).
Sariol has assigned error to the trial court’s “[d]ismissal of case for failure to s t ate
claim with prejudice,” “[d]ismissal of exhibits including plaintiff’s Emergency Strict reply,”
and “[d]efendant’s District court supplemental source for Judicial Notice request; Tim J.No

. 7 9807

- 3

- I / 5

- 5

-

Filer supplemental for ‘motion to dismiss.’” In her briefing, Sariol has not explained how
the trial court erred in dismissing her case or the cause s of action she believes she has
against the Foundation

. Without a short and plain statement of her claim that shows
she is entitled to relief, the Foundation does not have sufficient notice to respond to

those claims and the court’s dismissal was proper

.
We affirm. 1

WE CONCUR:

1 Sariol also filed a statement of additional grounds pursuant to RAP 10.10. We decline to address her arguments because statements of additional grounds are only permitted in a criminal case on direct appeal. RAP 10.10.