A Named Defendant Served for a 2022 Case Had a Default Judgment Entered Against Him for $42,000 in 2026
Can a Strike 3 Holdings case in Texas end in a default judgment? Yes. On September 14, 2026, a federal judge in Sherman, Texas entered a Strike 3 Holdings default judgment of $42,000 against a Denton man who was served and never responded. The case began in 2022 as a John Doe lawsuit identified only by an IP address. The court awarded the statutory minimum of $750 for each of 56 works, entered a permanent injunction, and ordered the infringing copies destroyed. If you have received a letter or court document about a Strike 3 Holdings case, call or tap (312) 201-8310 for a free, confidential consultation.
A Named Defendant Served for a 2022 Case Had a Default Judgment Entered Against Him for $42,000 in 2026
A named defendant (we will not publish the man’s name here) residing in Denton, Texas had a default judgment entered against him in September 2026 in a Strike 3 Holdings case originally filed in 2022. The case is Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 47.186.204.229, No. 4:22-cv-00880 (E.D. Tex.), filed on October 17, 2022. In its September 14, 2026 opinion, the court stated that the defendant “was timely served and has failed to respond for nearly three years.” The court granted the statutory minimum of $750 per infringed work for 56 works, for a total of $42,000. It is not clear from the Order why no attorneys’ fees were included in the judgment entered against the Defendant.
Judge Sean D. Jordan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas signed the Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Strike 3 Holdings’ motion for default judgment (read the opinion). The case had been consolidated with other Strike 3 Holdings cases under lead case No. 4:22-cv-00459, and the motion was filed on the lead docket. The “4:” at the start of an Eastern District of Texas docket number means the Sherman courthouse.
Key facts from the Strike 3 Holdings default judgment
| Item | What the record shows |
|---|---|
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division |
| Case number | 4:22-cv-00880, consolidated under lead case 4:22-cv-00459 |
| Judge | Sean D. Jordan, U.S. District Judge |
| Filed | October 17, 2022, against a John Doe identified only by an IP address |
| Internet provider | Frontier Communications, which identified the subscriber in response to a court-approved subpoena |
| Works at issue | 56 copyrighted videos |
| Defendant’s response | None. The court said he was timely served and failed to respond for nearly three years. |
| Clerk’s entry of default | Entered before the motion for default judgment |
| Decision date | September 14, 2026 |
| Damages | $42,000 ($750 statutory minimum × 56 works) |
| Other relief | Permanent injunction and an order to destroy all infringing copies |
Source: Memorandum Opinion and Order, No. 4:22-cv-00880 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2026), and the court docket, reviewed November 4, 2026.
How a 2022 John Doe complaint became a Strike 3 Holdings default judgment
- 2022: Strike 3 Holdings filed the case against a John Doe known only by an IP address. Strike 3 Holdings said its detection system, VXN Scan, downloaded files matching 56 of its copyrighted videos from that IP address over BitTorrent, and that a geolocation service showed the address was assigned by Frontier Communications to a subscriber in Denton.
- The subpoena: Strike 3 Holdings moved for and obtained a subpoena to the internet provider, which identified the account holder and his street address.
- Naming and service: Strike 3 Holdings then named the account holder as the defendant and served him under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- No response: The defendant did not answer or appear. The court described a “nearly three-year delay.”
- Clerk’s default: At Strike 3 Holdings’ request, the clerk entered default.
- Default judgment: Strike 3 Holdings moved for default judgment, and on September 14, 2026 the court granted it. This is the Strike 3 Holdings default judgment described above.
What a Strike 3 Holdings default judgment means under Rule 55
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs defaults. As the opinion explains, a default judgment involves three steps: the defendant’s default (not responding to the complaint), the clerk’s entry of default, and then the court’s default judgment. The court has discretion over whether to grant the judgment and what relief to award.
A default does not mean a Strike 3 Holdings default judgment follows automatically. In this opinion the court explained that a defaulting defendant is treated as admitting the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations, but not its allegations about damages. The court still checked whether the complaint stated a valid copyright claim and decided the amount itself. Because the defendant never appeared, no one in the case challenged Strike 3 Holdings’ evidence or raised any defense.
Why the Strike 3 Holdings default judgment was $42,000
Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), a copyright owner can ask for statutory damages instead of proving actual losses. The usual range is $750 to $30,000 per work. Strike 3 Holdings asked for the minimum, $750, for each of the 56 works, and the court granted that request, for a total of $42,000. Because the amount could be calculated mathematically, the court held that no evidentiary hearing was needed.
The court also entered a permanent injunction under 17 U.S.C. § 502, barring the defendant from downloading, copying, or distributing the works without permission. Under 17 U.S.C. § 503, it ordered him to destroy all infringing copies, including by permanently deleting and removing them from each of his computers.
What this Strike 3 Holdings default judgment means for Texas defendants
Most cases never end in a Strike 3 Holdings default judgment. In this case the defendant was served and then did not respond for nearly three years, so the court decided the case with only Strike 3 Holdings’ side in front of it. The amount came from a simple formula: number of works times the statutory minimum.
Texas cases can also end in other ways. In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 4:26-cv-03009 (S.D. Tex.), a Houston case filed April 15, 2026, the court allowed a subpoena in July. The John Doe filed a motion to quash in August, Strike 3 Holdings filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice six days later. The Court then court entered an order of dismissal without prejudice on August 26, 2026. This indicates a very high likelihood that the matter was a “walkaway”. The reasons why are not disclosed.
The lesson from this Strike 3 Holdings default judgment is practical. A Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit has deadlines, and the court will act if no one responds. If you get an ISP letter, a subpoena notice, or a summons, read the dates in it and get advice before the deadline passes. Our Strike 3 Holdings Texas lawsuits trends for 2026 cover the rest of the Texas dockets, and our guide Should I ignore a Strike 3 Holdings subpoena? explains what happens when people wait.
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 Texas
Antonelli Law® has represented 198 clients who live in Texas in federal copyright matters, including Strike 3 Holdings cases in all four federal districts. We handle Texas matters by phone, email, and secure upload through our contact page, so you do not need to travel to meet with us.
Our Texas clients have lived in Allen, Anna, Austin, Buda, Carrollton, Cedar Hill, Cedar Park, Celina, Coppell, Corinth, Crosby, Cypress, Dallas, Del Rio, Denton, DeSoto, Fate, Flower Mound, Forney, Fort Worth, Friendswood, Frisco, Fulshear, Garland, Georgetown, Grand Prairie, Grand Saline, Harker Heights, Houston, Humble, Hurst, Hutto, Irving, Jonestown, Katy, Killeen, Kingwood, Kyle, Leander, Lewisville, Liberty Hill, Little Elm, Manvel, McAllen, McKinney, Missouri City, Mont Belvieu, Murphy, New Braunfels, Odessa, Parker, Pasadena, Pearland, Pflugerville, Plano, Richardson, Richmond, Rosenberg, Rosharon, Round Rock, Sachse, San Antonio, Spring, Sugar Land, The Colony, Tomball, Universal City, Willis, Wimberley, and Wylie.
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.
Clients Appreciate Our Communication & Results
Here is just one client review of Jeffrey Antonelli. Click the link below for many others.
Posted by John | August 05, 2026 | Hired Attorney
great experience with Antonelli
“I hired Jeffrey Antonelli for a copyright infringement issue (Strike3) in Massachusetts. It was a very good decision. He has dealt with many such cases and immediately put me at ease. He ended up negotiating a settlement that was much less than what I told him was my limit. He understood my privacy concerns and ensured that my name stayed out of any communication with opposing counsel, court filings etc. The whole issue was wrapped up within 3 weeks. He charges a non-negligible fee, but it is 100% worth it if you want to settle quickly and quietly and move on.”
Got a letter or court document about a Strike 3 Holdings Texas case?
Most people we talk with want a quiet, anonymous resolution. We also defend cases in court when that is the better path. The first step is simply a free, confidential consultation about your letter and the documents in your case.
Call or tap: (312) 201-8310
Or email or upload your documents through our contact page, or choose an attorney and book a time below.
Schedule Your Free Confidential Strike 3 Holdings Consultation
Speak directly with our team. Choose the attorney you prefer. A consultation is not a decision to go to court.
Melissa Ross
Alec Dardis
Jeffrey Antonelli
Paul Sanders
Frequently asked questions
Can a Strike 3 Holdings default judgment happen in Texas?
Yes. If a named defendant is properly served and does not respond, the clerk can enter a default and the court can enter a default judgment. That is what happened in No. 4:22-cv-00880 in Sherman on September 14, 2026.
How was the $42,000 figure calculated?
The court awarded the statutory minimum of $750 per work under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) for 56 works: 56 × $750 = $42,000.
Was the defendant’s name public?
Yes. The case started as a John Doe case, but after the internet provider identified the subscriber, he was named and his name appears in the court’s opinion. We do not publish it. Our article on when a Strike 3 Holdings defendant’s name becomes public explains how that happens.
Do I need a Texas lawyer for a Strike 3 Holdings case?
No. Strike 3 Holdings Texas 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.
Related reading
- Strike 3 Holdings Texas lawsuits trends 2026
- Your options to resolve your Texas Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit
- Subpoena from Strike 3 Holdings in Texas
- What a Strike 3 Holdings amended complaint means
- Strike 3 Holdings anonymous settlement
- Strike 3 Holdings FAQ
- Should I ignore a Strike 3 Holdings subpoena?
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 4, 2026.
TORRENT DEFENDERS® is a federally registered trademark owned exclusively by the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Antonelli, Ltd. dba Antonelli Law®.
Strike 3 Holdings vs. John Doe: 92 New Cases Filed July 2019
Sued in an LHF Productions Inc Lawsuit? Free Consultation With Antonelli Law Defense
What to Do When You Receive a Strike 3 Holdings ISP Letter
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.