Zaykaria v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation

W.D. Oklahoma

Zaykaria v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation

DecidedApril 9, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00316

StatusUnknown

This text of Zaykaria v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation (Zaykaria v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zaykaria v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, (W.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Ankit Devarsh Zaykariya, Sui Juris, ) A.K.A. Robert M. Patterson; and ) Sasche-Tiye Zaykariya, Sui Juris ) A.K.A. Robbin D. Patterson, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-316-D ) Freedom Mortgage Corporation, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) [Doc. No. 15], in which Plaintiffs request that the Court strike MERS from the above-captioned matter. Although not cited by Plaintiffs, the Court construes the motion as a notice filed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to “dismiss an action without a court order … before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment[.]”1 Here, at the time Plaintiffs filed their motion, MERS had not filed an answer or summary judgment motion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ filing is self-executing and no further action by the Court is required as to MERS. See De Leon v. Marcos, 659 F.3d 1276, 1283 (10th Cir. 2011) (“A

1 “Several district courts in the Tenth Circuit, as well as the majority of circuit courts, have held that Federal Rule of [Civil] Procedure 41 may be used to dismiss all claims against one defendant without dismissing the entire action.” Castillo v. Prater, No. CIV-23-675-D, 2023 WL 9546946, at *13 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 8, 2023) (collecting cases), rec. adopted, No. CIV-23-675-D, 2024 WL 21801 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 2, 2024). stipulation of dismissal filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or (11) is self-executing and immediately strips the district court of jurisdiction over the merits.”). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9" day of April, 2025.

\ ty Q □□□ TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Ankit Devarsh Zaykariya, Sui Juris, ) A.K.A. Robert M. Patterson; and ) Sasche-Tiye Zaykariya, Sui Juris ) A.K.A. Robbin D. Patterson, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-316-D ) Freedom Mortgage Corporation, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) [Doc. No. 15], in which Plaintiffs request that the Court strike MERS from the above-captioned matter. Although not cited by Plaintiffs, the Court construes the motion as a notice filed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to “dismiss an action without a court order … before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment[.]”1 Here, at the time Plaintiffs filed their motion, MERS had not filed an answer or summary judgment motion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ filing is self-executing and no further action by the Court is required as to MERS. See De Leon v. Marcos, 659 F.3d 1276, 1283 (10th Cir. 2011) (“A

1 “Several district courts in the Tenth Circuit, as well as the majority of circuit courts, have held that Federal Rule of [Civil] Procedure 41 may be used to dismiss all claims against one defendant without dismissing the entire action.” Castillo v. Prater, No. CIV-23-675-D, 2023 WL 9546946, at *13 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 8, 2023) (collecting cases), rec. adopted, No. CIV-23-675-D, 2024 WL 21801 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 2, 2024). stipulation of dismissal filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or (11) is self-executing and immediately strips the district court of jurisdiction over the merits.”). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9" day of April, 2025.

\ ty Q □□□ TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Zaykaria v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zaykaria-v-freedom-mortgage-corporation-okwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack