Strike 3 Amended Complaint: What the Later Stage Means
A Strike 3 Holdings amended complaint is a later stage than the first ISP letter. The case starts as John Doe. Months later, Strike 3 may file an amended complaint and ask someone to sign a waiver of service of summons; or, file proof that a Summons and Amended Complaint was physically served on the Defendant. Those are not the same document as the ISP notice they received a Subpoena to reveal the name of the Subscriber of the Internet account.
A Summons places you under the jurisdiction of the court, once it is either served on you (called “service of process”) – or your attorney signs a Waiver of Service of Process for the Summons.
In Strike 3 Holdings cases, almost everyone targeted in their lawsuits first receive a notice/letter from their ISP that a Subpoena was received to reveal their name and address. And, how much longer the Subscriber holding that letter in their hand has to file a Motion to Quash that Subpoena. Almost everyone receiving that letter never wants the case to get as far as having an Amended Complaint filed by Strike 3 Holdings. The cases listed in this post have recently done just that. Strike 3 Holdings knows the Defendant’s name and the Amended Complaint is now very specifically targeting them.
This Torrent Defenders® explainer is educational. It is not legal advice. Antonelli Law® defends people and businesses against copyright claims. We do not represent copyright holders. Most people who call want a quiet resolution. Not filing papers in court like a Waiver of Service like in the cases below. We also defend in court when that is the right path.
What a Strike 3 Holdings Amended Complaint is
The first complaint usually names “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address” as the Defendant, not the name of a person. Strike 3 then asks the court for leave to subpoena the internet provider. If the provider identifies an account, Strike 3 may later file an amended complaint that ties the allegation to a person. Some of those filings are redacted on the public docket. Some are not.
A waiver of service of summons is a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) paper. It is a request that the defendant waive formal service of process of the summons. It is not a finding that anyone downloaded a movie. Proof of service is different. That filing tells the court the summons and amended complaint were delivered. A seal fight is separate. It is about whether a name stays off the public docket.
Strike 3 Holdings amended complaint examples on these dockets
These are public filings reviewed for this post. They show the later stage. They are not a complete national list. A Rule 4(d) waiver of service of summons in one district may have a local rule modification in another district court.
| Filed | Docket | Court | What the docket shows |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/20/2026 | 1:26-cv-11363 | D. Massachusetts, Judge William G. Young | Proof of service of the summons and amended complaint filed 10/05/2026 |
| 05/14/2026 | 1:26-cv-01665 | D.D.C., Judge John D. Bates | Redacted amended complaint on the docket. Exhibit A names Astound as the ISP. August 13, 2026 minute order extends time to serve to October 11, 2026. No separate order PDF |
| 05/15/2026 | 1:26-cv-12215 | D. Massachusetts, Judge Angel Kelley | Waiver of service of summons filed for the amended complaint |
| 05/20/2026 | 2:26-cv-11664 | E.D. Michigan, Judge Denise Page Hood | Waiver of service of summons filed for the amended complaint |
| 05/21/2026 | 1:26-cv-01381 | E.D. Virginia, Judge Anthony J. Trenga | Redacted amended complaint filed 09/15/2026. On 10/02/2026, Magistrate Judge Lindsey R. Vaala denied without prejudice the request to file it under seal |
On 1:26-cv-01665, Judge Bates’s August 13, 2026 minute order grants the extension and sets October 11, 2026 as the serve-by date. The order is the docket text. There is no attached PDF.
On 1:26-cv-01381, a seal denial without prejudice means Strike 3 can ask again if it follows Local Civil Rule 5. It also means a name can become public if the request is not granted.
The papers, by docket
The links below are the public filings used for this post. Read the paper that matches your case number.
- 1:26-cv-11363 amended complaint — proof of service of summons and amended complaint
- 1:26-cv-01665 amended complaint, redacted
- 1:26-cv-12215 waiver of service of summons
- 2:26-cv-11664 amended complaint — waiver of service of summons
- 1:26-cv-01381 amended complaint, redacted — October 2, 2026 seal order
What this stage is not
An ISP letter is usually notice that the provider was ordered to identify an account. A Strike 3 Holdings amended complaint is a later filing. A Rule 4(d) waiver of service of summons, or date the Summons was served (stated on the Proof of Service of Summons), starts a response clock on that amended lawsuit complaint pleading. Ignoring either paper is a bad idea. Calling a lawyer is not a decision to go to trial.
Schedule Your Free Confidential Strike 3 Holdings Consultation
Speak directly with our team. Choose the attorney you prefer.
Jeffrey Antonelli
Alec Dardis
Melissa Ross
Paul
Call (312) 201-8310
If you email or upload the letter, the full docket number, and any amended complaint or waiver of service of summons, we can read those papers. Use the full case number, such as 1:26-cv-11363, not a short tail.
Share! Save Someone From Being Sued
ME2 Productions Inc Sues 700 Chicago Internet Users – Free Consultation With Antonelli Law Defense
Strike 3 Holdings September 2026 Filings: 139 Cases (Sept. 21–24) and 41 Confirmed Sept. 25
Strike 3 Holdings Files Hundreds of New Cases Across the US
About Author
JAntonelli
Jeffrey Antonelli is a member of the federal trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois and is admitted to numerous federal courts around the country. He has been a civil litigator nearly 25 years in a broad range of actions representing corporations and individuals as plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal court. Jeffrey has been interviewed by the media many times, including Bloomberg BNA, NBC, The New York Times, Chicago Lawyer, Chicago Tribune, and the longstanding lawyer’s publication Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. Prior to forming Antonelli Law Ltd. in 2007 Jeffrey worked for several litigation boutiques in Chicago’s Loop as well as a full service firm. His litigation experience includes hotly contested issues in intellectual property, business, insurance, and consumer fraud. He is an adviser to the Illinois Board of Higher Education Advisory Council for Private Business and Vocational Schools (PBVS), and was a member of the Illinois State Bar Association Education Law Section Council from 2012-2013. Jeffrey is especially proud of his work representing hundreds of students defrauded by improperly accredited educational institutions, including as certified class counsel. Before attending law school, Jeffrey was interested first in business, and then in biomedical ethics. These interests led him to graduate from the nation’s largest philosophy department at Loyola University in Chicago, where some of his favorite (and most challenging) subjects were cognitive science and philosophy of science. During college he held positions at the University of Chicago’s Ben May Institute; as a medical assistant for a University of Chicago foot and ankle surgeon; and volunteered in the emergency room at the University of Chicago Hospitals. These experiences led to studying health law at the DePaul College of Law where Jeffrey earned his law degree and a certificate in health law. At that time DePaul’s Institute for Health Law was consistently ranked in the top 10 health law specialty programs nationwide. During law school Jeffrey immersed himself in studying the practical and public policy aspects of health care through internships at the American Medical Association in Chicago, and on Capitol Hill at the Governmental Relations Office of the Association of American Medical Colleges in Washington, DC. Jeffrey has concentrated in civil litigation throughout his legal career, and is a member of the federal trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois, the Central District of Illinois federal court, and all federal courts of Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana. In addition, he is a member of the DuPage County Bar Association and the Illinois State Bar Association. Jeffrey prides himself on his strong personal ideals, passionate, ethical advocacy, and working hard to bring the best possible results for his clients. He also maintains a special interest in cases involving fraud. Whether due to good parenting, his family’s law enforcement employment, undergraduate studies in philosophy including ethics, or a fortuitous outcome of good breeding, one essence of Jeffrey’s character is a drive to root out the truth behind fraudulent practices.