asserts that Doe 24.5.180.56’s copyright registration argument is frivolous because Plaintiff has alleged that it has a currently pending copyright application for the Work in the United States Copyright Office, Id. (citing Complaint at ¶ 20), and the Ninth Circuit has found that the United States Copyright Office’s receipt of a complete copyright application satisfies the registration requirement of a copyright infringement action. Id. at 4 (citing Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp, 606 F.3d 612, 621 (9th Cir.2010)). F. Voluntary Dismissal of Doe Defendants 1-5 On August 10, 2011, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Does 1-5 from the action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. III. MAGISTRATE JURISDICTION UNDER 3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Here, Plaintiff has consented to magistrate
holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner holding that only courts in the county where property was situated had jurisdiction to hear an action concerning the property holding that a party cannot waive in rem jurisdiction under florida law and a court proceeding pursuant to in rem jurisdiction must actually possess in rem jurisdiction over the property that is the subject of the matter holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to enter default judgment in an in rem forfeiture action even though property owner had not consented to it because 28 usc  636c1 only requires the consent of the parties and the property owner having failed to comply with the applicable filing requirements was not a party holding that because the property owner argued only a theory of taking that was no longer a valid theory property owner did not demonstrate his entitlement to relief