ORDER RE REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 21)

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs Robert Christofferson and Sandra Christofferson filed this action on October 4, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) On April 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a request to dismiss all Doe defendants from this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 21.)

"[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), `a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.'" Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993). Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to dismiss some or all of the defendants in an action through a Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692. "[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can't complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it." Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading.

Accordingly, the Doe defendants have been dismissed from this action pursuant to Plaintiffs' Rule 41 notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.