Strike 3 Holdings Michigan Filings: 8 John Doe Cases on October 6
Strike 3 Holdings Michigan filings on October 6, 2026 are eight new John Doe copyright cases – seven in the Eastern District of Michigan and one in the Western District of Michigan. Each complaint names a subscriber only by an IP address. That is not a finding that the account holder downloaded a file. This Torrent Defenders® explainer is educational. It is not legal advice. Antonelli Law® defends people who receive these papers. We do not represent copyright holders. We do not invent a national 24-hour clock.
These Strike 3 Holdings Michigan filings name the subscriber by an IP address only. A filing is not a finding that the account holder downloaded a file.
The city, ISP, and works count in the tables come from Exhibit A to the complaint. The IP address is also in the complaint caption. Notices are a later step, covered separately: Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena orders.
Strike 3 Holdings New Michigan filings at the Detroit courthouse
Seven complaints filed October 6, 2026. The plaintiff on each complaint we reviewed is Strike 3 Holdings, LLC.
| Filed | Docket | IP address | City | ISP | Works listed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/6/2026 | 2:26-cv-13803 | 24.127.174.152 | Sterling Heights, MI | Comcast Cable | 25 |
| 10/6/2026 | 2:26-cv-13804 | 68.41.208.207 | Southfield, MI | Comcast Cable | 25 |
| 10/6/2026 | 2:26-cv-13806 | 99.7.85.226 | Royal Oak, MI | AT&T Internet | 48 |
| 10/6/2026 | 2:26-cv-13807 | 68.49.38.243 | Ann Arbor, MI | Comcast Cable | 47 |
| 10/6/2026 | 2:26-cv-13811 | 68.40.169.234 | Detroit, MI | Comcast Cable | 54 |
| 10/6/2026 | 2:26-cv-13812 | 68.60.166.63 | Detroit, MI | Comcast Cable | 55 |
| 10/6/2026 | 2:26-cv-13813 | 73.145.242.66 | Detroit, MI | Comcast Cable | 32 |
Western District of Michigan — Grand Rapids courthouse
One complaint filed October 6, 2026. The plaintiff is Strike 3 Holdings, LLC.
| Filed | Docket | IP address | City | ISP | Works listed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/6/2026 | 1:26-cv-02869 | 108.239.48.71 | Jenison, MI | AT&T Internet | 36 |
What Exhibit A is
Exhibit A is the plaintiff’s list attached to the complaint. It states a location, an IP address, an ISP name, and a works count. “Comcast Cable” and “AT&T Internet” are the labels on these exhibits. They are not a finding about who used the connection. Match the full docket on your letter, including the office digit, such as 2:26-cv-13813. A city match alone is not enough. Three of these captions list Detroit.
Notices come later
A case filed on October 6 does not mean a letter goes out that day. The plaintiff still has to ask for early discovery, and a judge still has to allow a subpoena to the provider. The date on a later letter is the provider’s date, not a national clock. Subpoena timing stays on its own page.
The October 1 Southern District of Ohio cases are already on the Ohio page. This post does not repeat them.
Who Signed these Lawsuit Complaints?
On the October 6, 2026 complaints we reviewed, the signature block is the same in the Eastern District of Michigan and the Western District of Michigan. The attorney representing Strike 3 Holdings LLC is Joel A. Bernier, Michigan bar number P74226, of Boroja, Bernier & Associates PLLC. Daniel Boroja, Michigan bar number P77079, is also listed.
Antonelli Law has represented many Michigander clients targeted in lawsuits filed by Joel Bernier.
Do not call the Strike 3 Holdings LLC’s plaintiff’s lawyers. Do not use a script from a forum.
Defense Attorney Jeffrey Antonelli: Admission in All Michigan Federal Courts
These eight cases are in the two Michigan federal courts. Seven were filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, at the Detroit courthouse. One was filed in the Western District of Michigan, at the Grand Rapids courthouse.
Defense attorney Jeffrey Antonelli was admitted in the Western District of Michigan on August 6, 2013. The certificate was signed in Grand Rapids on August 9, 2013, by Ashley Manken, Deputy Clerk, for Tracey Cordes, Clerk of Court. It is here: Western District of Michigan admission certificate.
Jeffrey was admitted in the Eastern District of Michigan on September 19, 2013. A certificate of good standing, dated at Detroit on February 19, 2025, and signed by Kinikia D. Essix, Clerk of Court, says he is in good standing as a member of the bar of that court. Tracy Thompson signed as Deputy Clerk. It is here: Eastern District of Michigan certificate of good standing.
Jeffrey is also admitted to the federal trial bar as well as the general federal bar in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. According to the Court, “Admission to the Northern District of Illinois District Court’s Trial Bar is a distinction of prestige and experience.” In practice, it means that without being a member of the trial bar, an attorney could not appear in court to examine witnesses or conduct a trial, what the Court calls “testimonial proceedings “.
An admission certificate for that federal district court is not necessary for a lawyer to appear in federal court, although an active attorney license is required. In fact, it is very common for attorneys to represent clients in multiple federal court around the country. As an example, here is one attorney not affiliated with Antonelli Law in any way but is a partner in a nationally renowned United States Supreme Court and appellate practice group – her representative cases listed are for federal appellate courts located in California, Chicago, Colorado, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Her office is located in downtown Chicago. The technical term for this federal admission practice is called pro hac vice. This is true even for appearing before the United States Supreme Court. Its pro hac vice rule is found at Rule 6 and may be read here.
Antonelli Law® defends people who received a notice from their ISP that a Subpoena has been received to reveal their identity; as well as litigating in federal and court. We do not represent Strike 3 Holdings. If your letter lists one of these dockets or one of the IP addresses listed above, email us your letter or upload it when you book a free consultation with our online appointment scheduler below.
If the Disclosure Date/ Motion Filing Deadline in Your ISP Letter Different than the Subpoena’s Compliance Date – Call Antonelli Law
- Read the letter for the full case number as well as your ISP deadline for releasing your name, or for filing a Motion to Quash the Subpoena.
- If the Subpoena deadline or compliance date is different than the date in your ISP letter, this timing can make a difference. Talk with an experienced Antonelli Law attorney.
- That deadline is usually about the provider’s response to a subpoena. It could result in your name being public in an Amended Complaint, but not necessarily.
- Do not call the plaintiff’s lawyer from a script you found on a forum.
- Do not ignore a later document that actually names a person and sets an answer date. That is a different kind of paper than an ISP letter notifying you they received a Subpoena to release your name.
What this post is not saying
It is not saying these eight Michigan cases have already produced ISP letters. On the complaints we reviewed, this post is about the October 6 filings and Exhibit A. It is not saying a letter goes out on the filing date.
Antonelli Law has defended people and businesses in BitTorrent and ISP-subpoena copyright matters since 2010, including nearly 3,000 Strike 3 Holdings matters since 2017 and more than 5,000 clients overall across 50-plus copyright plaintiffs. Consultations are free and confidential.
If your letter lists a docket in this table, or one of these IP addresses, email the letter or upload it when you book. Clients do not need to bring the letter to the office.
Strike 3 Holdings Defense
Schedule Your Free Confidential Strike 3 Holdings Consultation
Speak directly with an experienced federal copyright defense attorney — free, confidential, no obligation.
Jeffrey
Alec
Melissa
Paul
Jeffrey Antonelli
“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.”
Alec Van Dardis
“When You Really Need Help! In a very difficult time Antonelli-Law, represented by Alec Dardis was there to offer outstanding support and direction in order to move thru this situation. When I had the choice in trying to find the right representation I needed – I made the correct decision in retaining the services Antonelli-Law.”
Posted by robert | September 30, 2026 | Hired Attorney
Paul Sanders
“This experience was one of the most stressful experiences I have ever dealt with. Mostly because it came out of no where and I have never been in trouble with the law like this before. From the beginning, Mr. Sanders was so nice and calming. I know he stayed on the phone with longer than he had to just to make sure I was ok. Although I remained stressed, he put me at ease with his knowledge, confidence, and sincerity. The entire process took about 2 1/2 weeks and I was so grateful when it was over. He is a great attorney.”
Melissa Ross
“Woking with Melissa was fantastic. She was really effective in communicating with me in layman terms; translating legalize, explaining the process and making me feel I was in really good hands. She was always reachable and extremely prompt in communicating the back and forth between opposing counsel. I couldn’t have asked for more from Melissa. Because of the time zone, I was catching her late in her evenings and she always responded – THANK YOU. Sometimes you get lucky with the initial interview process, and I certainly did.”
This post is legal information, not legal advice for any one case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
TORRENT DEFENDERS® is a federally registered trademark owned exclusively by the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Antonelli, Ltd.
Related reading
- Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena orders — deadlines depend on the court
- Strike 3 Holdings Ohio filings
- Strike 3 Holdings September 2026 filings
- Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey filings — mid-September 2026
Share! Save Someone From Being Sued
New Jersey Malibu Media Case Filed in February 2017 Still Going in April 2019
If You’re Being Sued By Malibu Media, Don’t Delay
Got a Cell Film Holdings Subpoena? Ask a Lawyer for Free
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.