Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey Filings — Mid-September 2026 Wave
Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey activity in mid-September 2026 was a two-day filing burst: 25 John Doe copyright cases in the District of New Jersey on September 18 and September 21. The complaints name an IP address, not a person. On the papers we have reviewed, 24 of those files include Exhibit A city, ISP, and works-listed figures. One file — 2:26-cv-12335 — is listed below with the caption IP only.
This post is educational. It is not legal advice about your facts. If a letter from Comcast, Verizon Fios, or Verizon Internet Services names one of these dockets, you can email the letter or upload it through the firm’s contact form. Do not assume the subscriber is the downloader. Do not assume a works count is a bill.
What is happening in other courts this month
New Jersey is the largest mid-September cluster we have pulled so far, but it is not the only one.
In the same mid-September window Strike 3 also filed groups in the Eastern District of New York, the District of Maryland, and the District of Colorado. We will publish separate posts for those districts soon, and we will add the links here.
Southern District of Florida is a different story this month: several new case numbers were administratively closed within a day — including files closed because no initiating document was attached, and at least one closed under a standing practice that gives the plaintiff a short window to seek early discovery or face closure. That is not the same as a paid settlement, and it is not the same as a New Jersey complaint that remains open. That Florida practice will get its own post.
For the broader September letter timing and for how an ISP subpoena order works once a judge allows it, see our earlier pieces on Strike 3 Holdings ISP notices and Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena. Minnesota readers looking for the 40-case consolidation should use the Minnesota ISP subpoena post.
Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey cases: what is on the docket today
None of these 25 New Jersey dockets, on the histories we reviewed, yet shows an order granting leave to serve a third-party subpoena on an ISP. What is on the docket in each file is the usual opening set: complaint with Exhibit A and civil cover sheet, a Local Civil Rule 40.1(c) notice, a corporate disclosure identifying General Media Systems, LLC as parent, and an AO121 copyright form. Counsel of record on the complaints is John Atkin.
That matters for timing. An ISP notice usually follows a court order, not the filing date alone. If your envelope arrives in late September or October and lists one of the dockets below, that is the notice stage described in our ISP-notice post — not a judgment.
New Jersey splits these files across three courthouse locations. The first digit usually does not work on Pacer.gov when searching for a case. When searching on Pacer.gov, the official USA federal court docket website, just use 26-cv-0000, not 1:26-cv-0000–KMW-SAK. Want to google the who thing? Sure.
- 1: Camden vicinage
- 2: Newark vicinage
- 3: Trenton vicinage
Cities, ISPs, and works listed
On the 24 Exhibit A extracts:
- Verizon Fios appears most often.
- Comcast Cable is second.
- Verizon Internet Services appears once — 2:26-cv-12430 (Perth Amboy). That is not the same label as Verizon Fios.
- Works listed range from 24 to 99. The high end on these papers is 3:26-cv-12437 (Forked River, Comcast Cable, 99). Other high counts include 3:26-cv-12444 (Bricktown, 73) and 1:26-cv-12324 (Mount Laurel, 67).
- Jersey City appears three times, with three different IPs and two different ISPs. Perth Amboy appears twice, once Verizon Internet Services and once Comcast Cable. Those are separate cases.
A “works count” is an allegation in an exhibit. It is not a court finding and it is not an invoice.
The 25 District of New Jersey cases
If you search your own docket onPacer.gov, use the full number — 26-cv-12433, not “12433.”
An IP Address and Time Stamp Does Not Identify a Human Downloader
An IP address plus a timestamp in a complaint does not tell anyone who paid the Internet bill that month (who the Subscriber was) or who, if anyone, downloaded the alleged movies inside the home or business.
After all, we still remember the now-famous 2008 computer science article: WhyMy Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice by Michael Piatek, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Arvind Krishnamurthy.
“Copyright holders utilize inconclusive methods for identifying infringing BitTorrent users. We were able to generate hundreds of DMCA takedown notices for machines under our control at the University of Washington that were not downloading or sharing any content.”
Michael Piatek, Tadayoshi Kohno & Arvind Krishnamurthy, Challenges and Directions for Monitoring P2P File Sharing Networks—or Why My Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice, University of Washington Technical Report UW-CSE-08-06-01.
Watch Tadayoshi Kohno discuss the study in a Stanford University talk →
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 25 cases have already produced ISP letters. On the dockets we reviewed, early-discovery orders are not on file – yet. It is not saying a New Jersey administrative closing happened here; that pattern is the Florida discussion above.
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 a mid-September Eastern District of New York, Maryland, or Colorado caption we have not posted yet — request a consultation here:
https://www.antonelli-law.com/contact/
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 c”
Alec Van Dardis
“I had an excellent experience working with Alec. He was very knowledgeable and calm. He was thorough with his explanations, strategic in his approach, and incredibly responsive whenever I had questions. I’m grateful for his support and highly recommend him to anyone needing a skilled and trustwort.”
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 j.”
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.
Share! Save Someone From Being Sued
2021 Florida Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits
Got a Cell Film Holdings Subpoena? Ask a Lawyer for Free
Why You Need To Act When Malibu Media Is Suing You
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.