Strike 3 Holdings California Lawsuit Trends: May–October 2026

If your internet provider sent you a letter about a Strike 3 Holdings case in California, this report shows where these cases are being filed, how California federal judges are handling them, and what usually comes next. Call or tap (312) 201-8310 for a free, confidential consultation with Torrent Defenders®, a practice of Antonelli Law®.

How many Strike 3 Holdings California lawsuits were filed from May to October 2026?

Strike 3 Holdings filed 523 California federal lawsuits from May 3 to November 2, 2026, based on the dockets reviewed as of November 3, 2026. That compares with 515 cases from November 3, 2025 to May 2, 2026.

The statewide total barely moved, but the mix of courts changed. The Central District, which covers Los Angeles, Orange County and the Inland Empire, filed fewer cases. The Northern and Eastern Districts filed more.

Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 3, 2026. Counts are cases with Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as plaintiff, by filing date.

How did the monthly filings break down?

From May through September 2026, Strike 3 Holdings filed between 76 and 127 California cases each month. September 2026 was the busiest month with 127 cases. October 2026 had no new California filings in the dockets reviewed, and the next wave arrived on November 2, 2026.

Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 3, 2026.

For comparison, the prior six months ran Nov. 3–30, 2025: 86, December 2025: 42, January 2026: 127, February 2026: 69, March 2026: 98, April 2026: 93. January 2026 was the single busiest month across the full year, with 127 California cases, the same as September 2026.

When were the biggest filing waves?

Strike 3 Holdings files California cases in batches. Most months had one large wave over three to five business days, usually in the last ten days of the month:

• May 22–28, 2026: 97 cases, including 29 on May 22.
• June 22–30, 2026: 100 cases, including 29 on June 25.
• July 20–27, 2026: 101 cases, including 24 on each of July 21 and July 22, plus one more on July 29.
• August 19–24, 2026: 76 cases, including 27 on August 20.
• September 23–29, 2026: 127 cases, including 38 on September 29, the largest single day in the period.
• November 2, 2026: 21 cases, all in the Central District of California.

If you received a provider letter in late 2026, your case was most likely filed in one of the September waves. We covered earlier California batches in our September California filings report and our Sacramento and Santa Ana filings update.

Which California courthouse locations handled the new cases?

The number before the colon in a California docket number shows the courthouse location. For example, a Central District case beginning “8:” is a Santa Ana case, and a Northern District case beginning “5:” is a San Jose case.

Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 3, 2026. All Eastern District cases in both periods carried the Sacramento prefix.

The biggest shifts were inside the Central District. Los Angeles filings fell from 215 to 172, while Santa Ana filings rose from 42 to 68. In the Northern District, San Jose rose from 37 to 59 and Oakland from 23 to 39, while San Francisco fell from 72 to 52. You can read more about each court on our Central District of California and Northern District of California pages, and see all four courts on our Strike 3 Holdings California lawsuits hub.

Which judges were assigned?

Judge assignments were not on the documents we have for most new Central and Northern District cases. Where they were shown, the patterns were clear:

• Eastern District: Judge John A. Mendez (23 cases) and Senior Judge William B. Shubb (19 cases) were assigned most new Sacramento cases we reviewed, with Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney handling the early subpoena requests in 42 of them. We wrote about her approach in our Eastern District of California post on Magistrate Judge Delaney.
• Southern District: the cases were spread across more than a dozen district judges, including Judges Marilyn L. Huff, Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, Gonzalo P. Curiel, Cynthia Ann Bashant, Linda Lopez and Andrew G. Schopler. Magistrate Judges Allison H. Goddard, Steve B. Chu, Jill L. Burkhardt, Daniel E. Butcher and David D. Leshner handled early subpoena requests.
• Northern District: many cases are assigned directly to a magistrate judge. Judges on the dockets we reviewed included Magistrate Judges Sallie Kim, Lisa J. Cisneros, Jacqueline Scott Corley, Susan van Keulen, Virginia K. DeMarchi, Thomas S. Hixson and Joseph C. Spero, and from District Judges Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., Araceli Martínez-Olguín and Edward J. Davila.

How many California cases had an amended complaint?

Amended complaints were filed in 14 Strike 3 Holdings California cases between May 3 and November 2, 2026, based on the dockets reviewed. One more case had a docket entry tagged as a request for leave. In the prior six months, amended complaints were filed in 12 California cases.

An amended complaint usually means Strike 3 Holdings has received the subscriber information from the internet provider and is replacing “John Doe” with a person it believes is responsible. In California these are often filed in redacted form under seal, so the name does not appear on the public docket. The amended complaints linked in the table below are the public, redacted versions, with the defendant’s name and address blacked out. Our guide to Strike 3 Holdings amended complaints explains what this step means.

Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 3, 2026. “Not on the documents we have” means that detail was not on the court documents we reviewed, not that it is missing from the case.

Three older Northern District cases with amended complaints from the prior six months also moved forward, with answers to the amended complaint filed in 4:25-cv-08414 (June 12, 2026), 3:25-cv-07513 (May 26, 2026) and 5:25-cv-08482 (May 20, 2026). In 4:25-cv-08414, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered a scheduling order on July 29, 2026 that set fact discovery to close on January 4, 2027. Cases that reach this stage are rare, but they show that some California cases do move into ordinary litigation.

Which California judges ruled differently from the usual pattern?

The usual pattern in a Strike 3 Holdings case is simple. A judge grants an early request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) to subpoena the internet provider, with standard protective conditions, and most cases later end in voluntary dismissals. For example, on August 6, 2026 Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt granted the request in S.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-04159 and required at least 45 days’ notice before the provider produces anything, 30 days for the subscriber to challenge it, and no release of identifying information without a court order if the subscriber wishes to stay anonymous (read the order).

The rulings below differ from that pattern.

Judge Consuelo B. Marshall (C.D. Cal.): show-cause orders and a default judgment

• Judge Marshall issued orders to show cause in 2:24-cv-04417 (July 13, 2026, ECF 39), 5:26-cv-00033 (July 13, 2026, ECF 17) and 2:25-cv-08278 (September 18, 2026, ECF 43). An order to show cause requires a party to explain why the case should not be dismissed or why some other step should not be taken.
• On August 26, 2026, Judge Marshall entered a default judgment in 2:24-cv-04417 (ECF 46) awarding Strike 3 Holdings $21,000 in statutory damages plus $405 in costs. A default judgment usually follows when a named defendant does not respond to the lawsuit, which is why ignoring a served complaint is risky. See should you ignore a Strike 3 Holdings subpoena?

Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. (C.D. Cal.): dismissal for failure to prosecute

In 8:25-cv-00924, Judge Hatter issued an order to show cause on July 23, 2026 (ECF 20) and then dismissed the case without prejudice on August 27, 2026 (ECF 21) under the court’s Local Rule 41-1 for failure to prosecute and comply.

Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín (N.D. Cal.): shortened deadline and a sanctions warning

In 3:26-cv-01465, Strike 3 Holdings asked for 96 more days to serve the defendant under Rule 4(m). On May 18, 2026 (ECF 11), Judge Martínez-Olguín granted an extension only to July 24, 2026. She noted that Strike 3 Holdings had not served the subpoena within the 21 days her March 16 order required, found that some of the delay seemed to be “of Plaintiff’s own making,” and warned of sanctions if the problem continued. Strike 3 Holdings voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on July 23, 2026.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. (N.D. Cal.): a limited protective order with the subpoena

In 4:26-cv-07770, Judge Gilliam granted leave to subpoena the provider on October 15, 2026 (ECF 8), issued a limited protective order at the same time, and continued the case management conference.

Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney (E.D. Cal.): motions to quash denied

On May 14, 2026, Magistrate Judge Delaney denied a motion to quash in 2:26-cv-00551 (ECF 9), two days after it was filed. She had denied similar motions in 2:25-cv-02569 (December 9, 2025) and 2:25-cv-02560 (April 6, 2026). A motion to quash that argues “it was not me” rarely succeeds at the subpoena stage, because the court is only deciding whether the provider can release a name and address.

Service extensions

Many California judges granted Strike 3 Holdings more time to serve. Senior Judge William B. Shubb granted extensions in E.D. Cal. 2:26-cv-00560 and 2:26-cv-00558 (May 22, 2026) and 2:26-cv-01919 and 2:26-cv-01922 (August 21, 2026). Judge Edward J. Davila granted one “as modified” in N.D. Cal. 5:26-cv-01466 on May 18, 2026, and Strike 3 Holdings dismissed that case with prejudice on June 8, 2026.

What we did not find

In the dockets reviewed, we found no California orders severing defendants, no sanctions orders against Strike 3 Holdings, and no outright denials of a subpoena request between May 3 and November 2, 2026. In the prior six months we found no show-cause orders in California Strike 3 Holdings cases, compared with four cases in the most recent period.

What happened in the Strike 3 Holdings v. Meta case?

The highest-profile Strike 3 Holdings case in California is not against an individual. In N.D. Cal. 5:25-cv-06213, Strike 3 Holdings and a related company sued Meta Platforms, alleging that Meta IP addresses were used to download and share its films with BitTorrent.

• June 11, 2026: Judge Eumi K. Lee denied Meta’s motion to dismiss (read the order). As 404 Media reported on June 15, 2026, the judge found Meta’s explanation that individual employees were responsible “strains credulity.”
• June 18, 2026: the Los Angeles Times profiled the case and Strike 3 Holdings’ broader litigation history.
• July 7, 2026: Strike 3 Holdings filed an amended complaint listing 2,973 works. Meta answered on July 21, 2026.
• July 26, 2026: TorrentFreak reported on Meta’s answer, including its statement about the source of one key IP address.

The Meta case does not change the process for individual subscribers, but it has drawn new attention to Strike 3 Holdings in the Bay Area. Local News Matters reported in February 2026 on the volume of Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits against Bay Area residents.

How fast do California judges approve the subpoena?

For California cases filed from May 3 to November 2, 2026, Strike 3 Holdings filed its request to subpoena the internet provider a median of 14 days after filing the complaint (most within 13 to 16 days), in the dockets where we could measure it. The next docket entry on that request, usually the judge’s order, came a median of 20 days after filing.

After the order, the provider sends its letter to the subscriber. California orders commonly give the subscriber 30 days or more to act before the provider releases a name and address. That window is the best time to get advice.

How are California Strike 3 Holdings cases ending?

Most California Strike 3 Holdings cases end with a voluntary dismissal by Strike 3 Holdings. Between May 3 and November 2, 2026, the dockets reviewed showed dismissals without prejudice in at least 41 California cases and dismissals with prejudice in at least 11. Almost all of the dismissals without prejudice we could see were in the Northern District, where docket entries are more fully described.

The type of dismissal matters:

• Without prejudice means the case ended without a ruling on the merits and could be refiled. It does not by itself mean there was a settlement.
• With prejudice means the claim cannot be refiled. Examples in the period include C.D. Cal. 2:26-cv-09394 (October 29, 2026), N.D. Cal. 5:26-cv-07684 (September 29, 2026), C.D. Cal. 2:26-cv-06728 (September 25, 2026), E.D. Cal. 2:26-cv-01913 (September 3, 2026) and C.D. Cal. 5:26-cv-01376 (August 28, 2026).

In the Northern District, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim also entered several court orders dismissing cases without prejudice, including 3:26-cv-06654 (September 29, 2026) and 3:26-cv-05028 (August 24, 2026).

Motions to quash or for a protective order were filed in 11 California cases during the period, compared with 10 in the prior six months, including N.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-08667 and 3:26-cv-07680 (both October 26, 2026) and C.D. Cal. 2:26-cv-06726 (September 30, 2026).

Which internet providers and cities appear most in the California cases?

We reviewed the Exhibit A for 67 California cases filed from September 25 to November 2, 2026. Exhibit A is the document attached to the complaint that lists the IP address, the approximate location, the internet provider, and the works Strike 3 Holdings says were shared.

Source: Exhibit A to each complaint. The city and provider reflect the IP address, not a named person.

The most common Exhibit A locations were Los Angeles (11 cases), Sacramento (7), San Jose (5), San Francisco (4), San Diego (4), Lake Forest (3) and Santa Clara (3). Santa Monica, Mountain View and Sunnyvale each appeared twice. The number of works listed per case ranged from 24 to 129, with a median of 35.

Comcast Xfinity subscribers made up more than a quarter of the California cases. If your letter came from Comcast, our guide to what a Comcast Xfinity letter about Strike 3 Holdings means walks through the notice, the deadline and your options.

What does this mean if you received an ISP letter in California?

A letter from your internet provider means a judge has allowed Strike 3 Holdings to ask for the name and address on your account. It does not mean you have been found responsible for anything, and it does not mean your name is public.

• Note the deadline. Your letter gives the date the provider plans to release your information. California orders often allow 30 days or more.
• Do not contact Strike 3 Holdings yourself. Anything you say can be used in the case.
• Check your case. The letter lists the court and docket number. Match the courthouse prefix to the table above to see where your case sits.
• Get advice early. The months above show that some cases move to amended complaints, show-cause orders or default judgments. Early advice helps you choose the right path. Our ISP letter guide and 2026 subpoena guide walk through each step.

Most people we talk with want a quiet, anonymous resolution, and many achieve one. See how an anonymous resolution works and whether your name can become public.

What you Can Learn

Our short videos explain some of the important things to know about the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit process, and your main options right now.

Many clients have told us our videos are very helpful. Click the image below to watch.

Clients we have represented in California

Antonelli Law® has represented clients across California in Strike 3 Holdings cases in all four federal districts.

Our California clients have lived in Alameda, Albany, Alhambra, Altadena, Anaheim, Aptos, Artesia, Azusa, Bakersfield, Banning, Belmont, Benicia, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Big Bear City, Burbank, Burlingame, Camarillo, Campbell, Canyon Country, Capistrano Beach, Carlsbad, Carmichael, Carson, Castro Valley, Cerritos, Chico, Chino Hills, Chula Vista, Citrus Heights, Clayton, Concord, Corona, Corte Madera, Costa Mesa, Covina, Culver City, Cupertino, Daly City, Danville, Davis, Diamond Bar, Downey, Dublin, East Palo Alto, El Cajon, Elk Grove, Emeryville, Escondido, Eureka, Fallbrook, Folsom, Forestville, Foster City, Fountain Valley, Fremont, Fresno, Fullerton, Gardena, Glendale, Glendora, Goleta, Granada Hills, Grand Terrace, Greenbrae, Hawthorne, Hayward, Hercules, and Hillsborough.

We have also represented California clients in Huntington Beach, Inglewood, Irvine, La Canada Flintridge, La Palma, La Verne, Ladera Ranch, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Lakeside, Lakewood, Lancaster, Lathrop, Lincoln, Livermore, Lomita, Long Beach, Los Altos, Los Angeles, Los Gatos, Manhattan Beach, Marina, Marina Del Rey, Menifee, Menlo Park, Mill Valley, Millbrae, Milpitas, Mission Viejo, Modesto, Monterey, Monterey Park, Morgan Hill, Mountain House, Mountain View, Murrieta, Napa, Nevada City, Newark, Newhall, Newport Beach, North Highlands, Northridge, Novato, Oakland, Oakley, Orange, Orangevale, Orinda, Oxnard, Pacific Grove, Pacific Palisades, Pacifica, Palo Alto, Pasadena, Pebble Beach, Petaluma, Pismo Beach, Placentia, and Playa Del Rey.

We have also represented California clients in Pleasant Hill, Pleasanton, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Redondo Beach, Redwood City, Reseda, Rialto, Richmond, Riverbank, Rocklin, Roseville, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Clemente, San Diego, San Dimas, San Francisco, San Gabriel, San Jose, San Leandro, San Mateo, San Pedro, San Rafael, San Ramon, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Clarita, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, Santa Ynez, Santee, Saratoga, Sausalito, Seal Beach, Sherman Oaks, Sierra Madre, Simi Valley, Soquel, South San Francisco, Studio City, Suisun, Sunnyvale, Temecula, Thousand Oaks, Torrance, Trabuco Canyon, Tracy, Turlock, Tustin, Ukiah, Union City, and Upland.

We have also represented California clients in Vacaville, Vallejo, Van Nuys, Venice, Ventura, Villa Park, Visalia, Vista, Walnut, Walnut Creek, Walnut Grove, West Covina, West Hills, West Sacramento, Whittier, Winnetka, Woodland Hills, and Yorba Linda.

Attorney Highlight: Alec Dardis

Clients Appreciate Our Communication & Results

Here is just one client review of Alec Dardis. Click the link below for many others.

Frequently asked questions about Strike 3 Holdings California lawsuits

Related reading

• Strike 3 Holdings California lawsuits hub
• Strike 3 Holdings in the Central District of California
• Strike 3 Holdings in the Northern District of California
• What a Strike 3 Holdings amended complaint means
• Strike 3 Holdings ISP letter guide
• Strike 3 Holdings subpoena guide for 2026
• Should I ignore a Strike 3 Holdings subpoena?
• How an anonymous resolution works
• Will my name become public?
• Strike 3 Holdings FAQ

Court websites: Central District of California, Northern District of California, Eastern District of California and Southern District of California.

Data note: counts and rulings in this report are based on the federal dockets reviewed as of November 3, 2026. Docket descriptions vary by court, so some entries may be described differently than shown here. Published November 3, 2026.

This page is general information about Strike 3 Holdings and similar BitTorrent copyright cases. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different. Client reviews describe individual experiences. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Antonelli Law® defends people and businesses against copyright claims and does not represent copyright holders. Attorney advertising. Information is current as of November 3, 2026.

TORRENT DEFENDERS® is a federally registered trademark owned exclusively by the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Antonelli, Ltd. dba Antonelli Law®.