Strike 3 Holdings California: 21 New Cases (Free Guide)

Strike 3 Holdings California filings surged on November 2, 2026, when Strike 3 Holdings filed 21 new John Doe copyright cases in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Each case names one internet subscriber identified only by an IP address. Below you will find every case, the Exhibit A details, the assigned judges where court records show one, where each case stands as of November 3, 2026, and what usually comes next. If your internet provider sends you a letter about one of these cases, call or tap (312) 201-8310 for a free, confidential consultation.

Strike 3 Holdings California filings: 21 cases filed November 2, 2026

All 21 cases were filed the same day, numbered from 2:26-cv-12831 to 2:26-cv-12852. The “2:” at the start of each docket number is the courthouse location in Los Angeles (Western Division).

The table lists details from each case’s Exhibit A, 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. Links in the Docket column open the Exhibit A and, where available, the complaint for each case. In these cases Strike 3 Holdings also puts the IP address in the case caption.

Source: court records for each case, including the complaint and Exhibit A, as of November 3, 2026. The city and provider come from Exhibit A and reflect the IP address, not a named person. “Not on the documents we have” means that detail is not on the court documents we have reviewed so far, not that it is missing from the case. For all California filings, judges and court orders in one place, see our Strike 3 Holdings California lawsuits hub and our Central District of California page. For how these letters work in general, see our ISP letter guide.

What the Exhibit A details show

• 21 cases in one day. All 21 Strike 3 Holdings California cases were filed in Los Angeles on November 2, 2026.
• The IP address is in the caption. Each case is captioned as Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address, followed by the address. Search the table for the IP address in your letter.
• 909 works in total. The 21 Exhibit A documents list between 24 and 129 works each. The largest, 2:26-cv-12833, lists 129 works (07/30/2026 to 10/22/2026).
• 10 different communities. The IP addresses trace to Los Angeles, CA (11 cases), Santa Monica, CA (2 cases), La Mirada, CA, Covina, CA, San Dimas, CA, Cerritos, CA, Sylmar, CA, Hawthorne, CA, Van Nuys, CA, and Redondo Beach, CA.
• Five providers. 11 cases involve Spectrum; five cases involve Frontier Communications; three cases involve AT&T Internet; one case involves Verizon 5G Home; one case involves Starry.
• Very different time spans. In 2:26-cv-12849 the activity listed covers 17 days (09/15/2026 to 10/01/2026). In 2:26-cv-12851 it runs from 04/07/2024 to 10/16/2026.
• Recent activity. The latest date listed in any of the Exhibit A documents is 10/22/2026, 11 days before filing.
• Overlapping titles. 101 file hashes appear in more than one Strike 3 Holdings California Exhibit A, so the same titles show up across different cases.

These details matter because the account holder named in a later subpoena response is not always the person who used the connection. A shared home network, a roommate, a guest, or an open router can all sit behind one IP address.

Judges and early subpoena motions in the Strike 3 Holdings California cases

We checked court records for all 21 Strike 3 Holdings California cases on November 3, 2026. As of November 3, 2026, the assigned judge was not on the documents we have for these cases. We will add it once the docket shows it. The court lists its judges on its judges page.

What the pattern shows

As of November 3, 2026, none of the dockets has a motion asking to subpoena the internet provider yet, so no order and no order conditions exist so far.

That is normal this early in a case. The next step is usually a motion for leave to serve a subpoena on the provider before the discovery conference. Once a judge rules, the order sets the conditions the provider and Strike 3 Holdings must follow, such as limiting the request to a name and address and setting a notice period. Because each judge writes their own order, the conditions can differ from case to case. You can see how judges handled earlier Strike 3 Holdings requests in California on our Strike 3 Holdings California lawsuits hub.

What this means if you are the John Doe

• No letter has gone out yet in these cases. A provider letter normally follows a court order, and none of these Strike 3 Holdings California cases has one so far.
• The letter will name the case. When it arrives, it should list the court, the docket number, and the IP address. Compare them with the table above.
• The letter sets your timeline. The date in your provider’s letter is the date to plan around.
• Your name is not in the public case. At this stage each case lists only an IP address.

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.

What usually happens next in Strike 3 Holdings California cases

1. Strike 3 Holdings files a John Doe complaint identified only by an IP address. That step is done in all 21 cases.
2. It asks the court for permission to subpoena the internet provider before the usual discovery conference. As of November 3, 2026, we have not seen that request filed in any of these cases.
3. If the court agrees, the provider notifies the account holder. That is the letter most people receive.
4. After the notice period in the court order, the provider may release the account holder’s name and address unless something is filed.

Use the dates in your own letter. Timelines in Strike 3 Holdings California cases depend on the judge and on the terms of each order. In these Strike 3 Holdings California cases, the internet providers listed are Spectrum (11 cases), Frontier Communications (5 cases), AT&T Internet (3 cases), Verizon 5G Home (1 case), and Starry (1 case). Those providers would send the subpoena letter for those cases. Our ISP letter guide explains what the letter means.

Clients we have represented in California

Antonelli Law® has represented 396 clients who live in California in federal copyright matters. We handle Strike 3 Holdings California matters by phone, email, and secure upload through our contact page, so you do not need to travel to Los Angeles to talk with us.

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: Jeffrey Antonelli

Jeffrey Antonelli founded Antonelli Law® in Chicago in 2007 and still leads its BitTorrent Copyright Defense Group, along with its Drone/UAS Practice Group. He has spent nearly 25 years as a civil litigator in state and federal court, on both the plaintiff and defense side, for individuals and corporations alike. Earlier in his career he worked at several Chicago Loop litigation boutiques and a full-service firm, on software, data center contracts, business, insurance and consumer fraud disputes.

He belongs to the trial bar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and is admitted in many other federal courts nationwide. Jeffrey studied philosophy at Loyola University Chicago, then earned his law degree, with a health law certificate, at DePaul. Outlets including The New York Times, NBC, Bloomberg BNA, the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Lawyer and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin have interviewed him.

Phone: (312) 201-8310. Email: Jeffrey@Antonelli-Law.com.

Book with Jeffrey · Jeffrey’s bio

Clients Appreciate Our Communication & Results

Here is just one client review of Jeffrey Antonelli. Click the link below for many others.

Frequently asked questions

Do I need a California lawyer for a Strike 3 Holdings case?

No. Strike 3 Holdings California cases are federal copyright cases. Antonelli Law® handles Strike 3 Holdings matters in federal courts nationwide, and you can work with us by phone, email, and upload.

My letter lists an IP address. How do I find my case?

In these cases the IP address appears in the case caption. Find the IP address from your letter in the table above, then confirm the docket number. Send the letter to us and we will check it with you.

Will my name be public?

At the subpoena stage the case usually lists only an IP address. Many people resolve these matters confidentially through counsel, often without their name appearing in the public record.

What if I did not download anything?

The person who pays for the internet account is not always the person who used it. That difference can matter a great deal, and it is worth discussing in a free, confidential consultation before you respond to anyone.

Related reading

• Strike 3 Holdings ISP letter guide
• Strike 3 Holdings ISP notices
• Strike 3 Holdings FAQ
• Strike 3 Holdings California lawsuits hub

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®.