Strike 3 Holdings Texas Lawsuit Trends: May–October 2026
Are Strike 3 Holdings Texas lawsuits increasing?
Yes. Based on the dockets reviewed as of November 4, 2026, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed 193 federal lawsuits in Texas between May 3 and November 2, 2026, up 14.9% from 168 in the prior six months.
- The Southern District of Texas still has the most cases (76), but it dipped slightly. The Western District rose from 49 to 64 and the Northern District from 35 to 47.
- Houston remained the busiest courthouse location with 65 cases, followed by Dallas (46) and Austin (42).
- Strike 3 Holdings filed in one batch each month. June 2026 was the busiest month with 42 cases, and September 25, 2026 alone brought 35.
- Another 21 cases were filed on November 3, 2026 (8 in the Northern District in Dallas and 13 in the Southern District in Houston and Galveston), after the six-month window. They are not counted in the 193.
- On September 14, 2026, a Sherman federal judge entered a $42,000 default judgment against a Texas defendant who did not respond.
If your internet provider sent you a letter about a Strike 3 Holdings case in Texas, this report shows where these cases are being filed, how Texas 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 Texas lawsuits were filed from May to October 2026?
Strike 3 Holdings filed 193 Texas federal lawsuits from May 3 to November 2, 2026, based on the dockets reviewed as of November 4, 2026. That compares with 168 cases in the prior six months (November 2025 to May 2, 2026).
The growth came from the Western, Northern and Eastern Districts. The Southern District, which covers Houston and Galveston, filed 5 fewer cases than in the prior six months.
| District | Prior six months | May 3 – Nov. 2, 2026 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Southern District of Texas (S.D. Tex.) | 81 | 76 | −6.2% |
| Western District of Texas (W.D. Tex.) | 49 | 64 | +30.6% |
| Northern District of Texas (N.D. Tex.) | 35 | 47 | +34.3% |
| Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.) | 3 | 6 | +100.0% |
| Texas total | 168 | 193 | +14.9% |
Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 4, 2026. Counts are cases with Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as plaintiff, by filing date. The earliest prior-period Texas filing in the dockets reviewed was November 20, 2025.
How did the monthly filings break down?
June 2026 was the busiest month, with 42 Texas cases. October was the lightest, with 18, because that month’s batch went only to Austin, San Antonio and Sherman.
| Month | S.D. Tex. | W.D. Tex. | N.D. Tex. | E.D. Tex. | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3–31, 2026 | 15 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 30 |
| June 2026 | 17 | 14 | 11 | 0 | 42 |
| July 2026 | 14 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 36 |
| August 2026 | 16 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 32 |
| September 2026 | 14 | 11 | 10 | 0 | 35 |
| October 2026 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 3 | 18 |
| November 1–2, 2026 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| November 3, 2026 (after the six-month window) | 13 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 21 |
Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 4, 2026.
For comparison, the prior six months ran Nov. 20–30, 2025: 34, December 2025: 31, January 2026: 26, February 2026: 25, March 2026: 25, April 2026: 27.
When were the biggest filing waves?
Strike 3 Holdings files Texas cases in batches. Houston cases usually come first, with Dallas and Austin cases a day or two later:
- May 14–15, 2026: 30 cases (15 in the Southern District on May 14, then 8 in the Northern District, 6 in the Western District and 1 in the Eastern District on May 15).
- June 16–19, 2026: 42 cases (17 Southern District cases on June 16, 11 Northern District cases on June 17 and 14 Western District cases on June 19).
- July 20–21, 2026: 36 cases.
- August 18–19, 2026: 32 cases.
- September 25, 2026: 35 cases in a single day across the Southern, Northern and Western Districts.
- October 30, 2026: 18 cases, 15 in the Western District and 3 in the Eastern District.
On November 3, 2026, just after the six-month window, Strike 3 Holdings filed 21 more Texas cases: 8 in the Northern District (Dallas, 3:26-cv-03853 through 3:26-cv-03860) and 13 in the Southern District (12 in Houston and 1 in Galveston, 3:26-cv-00395). Those 21 cases are not counted in the 193.
We covered the latest batch in our report on the 18 new Texas cases filed October 30, 2026.
Which Texas courthouse locations handled the new cases?
The number before the colon in a Texas federal docket number shows the courthouse location. For example, a Southern District case beginning “4:” is a Houston case, while an Eastern District case beginning “4:” is a Sherman case. The same prefix means different cities in different districts.
| Courthouse location | Docket prefix | Prior six months | May 3 – Nov. 2, 2026 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S.D. Tex. — Houston | 4: | 76 | 65 | −14.5% |
| S.D. Tex. — Galveston | 3: | 5 | 11 | +120.0% |
| W.D. Tex. — Austin | 1: | 32 | 42 | +31.2% |
| W.D. Tex. — San Antonio | 5: | 17 | 22 | +29.4% |
| N.D. Tex. — Dallas | 3: | 35 | 46 | +31.4% |
| N.D. Tex. — Wichita Falls | 7: | 0 | 1 | New |
| E.D. Tex. — Sherman | 4: | 3 | 6 | +100.0% |
Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 4, 2026. Some courthouse locations have small counts, so percentage changes there move a lot with only a few cases.
Houston remains the center of Texas filings, though it fell from 76 to 65 cases while Galveston rose from 5 to 11. Dallas grew from 35 to 46, Austin from 32 to 42 and San Antonio from 17 to 22. Sherman doubled from 3 to 6, and Wichita Falls had its first case in the dockets reviewed.
Did any Texas cases reach the amended-complaint stage?
Yes, on April 20, 2026. However, we found no amended complaint filed in a Texas Strike 3 Holdings case between May 3 and November 2, 2026, in the dockets reviewed. Two Dallas cases had orders on motions to amend or correct (3:26-cv-02771 on September 9, 2026 and 3:26-cv-03318 on October 2, 2026), but these docket entries had to do with motions for leave to issue an ISP Subpoena, not for an amended complaint. In the prior six months, an amended complaint was filed and Summons issued in the case 4:22-cv-00459 overseen by Presiding Judge Sean D. Jordan on April 30, 2026. Defendant’s true name appears in the court docket text, be we will not publish the name here.
In most courts, an amended complaint 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. Our guide to Strike 3 Holdings amended complaints explains this step, and whether your name can become public covers what that means for privacy.
How are Texas judges handling Strike 3 Holdings cases?
The usual first step is the same in all four districts. A judge grants an early request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) to subpoena the internet provider for the subscriber’s identity under Rule 45. Each district then handles the case in its own way.
Southern District: Fast scheduling orders in Houston
- Judge Charles Eskridge granted the subpoena request in 4:26-cv-04770 on July 15, 2026, less than a month after the case was filed on June 16. Five days later he entered a full scheduling order with discovery due July 7, 2027, a mediation deadline of September 21, 2027 and docket call on December 14, 2027.
- In 4:26-cv-03009, before Judge George C. Hanks Jr., the court extended Strike 3 Holdings’ time to serve on July 16, 2026. The John Doe subscriber filed a motion to quash on August 18, 2026. Strike 3 Holdings then filed a notice of dismissal, and the case was closed on August 26, 2026.
- In Galveston, Strike 3 Holdings asked Judge Jeffrey V. Brown for more time to serve in 3:26-cv-00155 on August 12 and again on October 12, 2026, under Rule 4(m).
Northern District: many Dallas judges
Dallas cases are spread across many judges. Among cases with a judge listed, Judge James E. Kinkeade had 7; Judges Sidney A. Fitzwater, Sam A. Lindsay and Brantley Starr had 6 each; Judges Ada Brown and Reed O’Connor had 5 each; and Judges David C. Godbey and Karen Gren Scholer had 4 each. Judge Scholer granted the subpoena request in 3:26-cv-02776 on September 2, 2026, 14 days after the case was filed.
Western District: Austin and San Antonio
The Western District grew the most in raw numbers. The October 30, 2026 San Antonio cases were assigned to Judges Orlando L. Garcia and Jason K. Pulliam, among others. In the prior six months, Judge Robert Pitman issued orders to show cause in older Austin cases (1:24-cv-01287 on February 18, 2026, and 1:25-cv-00844 and 1:25-cv-01014 on April 10, 2026). We found no orders to show cause in Texas cases from May 3 to November 2, 2026.
Eastern District: a default judgment in Sherman
Sherman is the smallest Texas docket, with 6 new cases, 3 of them filed October 30, 2026 and assigned to Judge Amos L. Mazzant III. It also produced the most important Texas ruling of the period, described below.
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 was subjected to a Default Order in September 2026 for a Strike 3 Holdings case originally filed in 2022! That Strike 3 Holdings LLC Texas lawsuit was Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 47.186.204.229, (E.D. Tex.) filed on October 17, 2022. Nearly four years later, the Court held that Defendant was timely served, and failed to respond for nearly three years. The Court granted the statutory minimum damages of $750 per infringed work for 56 Works, for a total of $42,000.
On September 14, 2026, Judge Sean D. Jordan of the Eastern District of Texas granted Strike 3 Holdings’ motion for default judgment in 4:22-cv-00880. (read the opinion). The defendant had not responded. Under Rule 55, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as admitted. It awarded $42,000, the statutory minimum of $750 for each of 56 works under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), entered a permanent injunction and ordered the defendant to delete all copies of the works.
The lesson is simple: a named defendant who ignores a Texas case can end up with a federal judgment. Most cases filed in this period are still at the subpoena stage, and many Texas cases end quietly with a notice of dismissal, as in 4:26-cv-03009. A dismissal does not by itself tell you why the case ended. We found no sanctions orders or dismissals with prejudice in Texas cases from May 3 to November 2, 2026.
Which internet providers and cities appear most in the Texas cases?
We reviewed the Exhibit A for all 18 Texas cases filed on October 30, 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.
| Internet provider | Cases | Share | Our provider guide |
|---|---|---|---|
| AT&T Internet | 7 | 39% | AT&T Internet letters |
| Spectrum | 6 | 33% | Spectrum subpoena notices |
| Optimum | 2 | 11% | — |
| Astound Broadband | 2 | 11% | — |
| Verizon 5G Home | 1 | 6% | Verizon letters |
Source: Exhibit A to each complaint. The city and provider reflect the IP address, not a named person.
AT&T Internet appeared in 7 of the 18 cases and Spectrum in 6. The most common Exhibit A locations were San Antonio (6 cases) and Austin (5), followed by Round Rock (2) and one each in Georgetown, Kyle, Anna, The Colony and Frisco. The number of works listed per case ranged from 24 to 57, with a median of 27.
The 21 cases filed on November 3, 2026, which are outside the 18-case table above, list Comcast Cable in 12 cases, AT&T Internet in 4, Spectrum in 3, and Frontier Communications and Astound Broadband in 1 each. Their Exhibit A locations include Houston (5 cases), Dallas (4), Spring, Katy and Sugar Land (2 each), and one each in Rowlett, Coppell, Garland, Richardson, League City and Baytown.
What Texas Strike 3 Holdings news came out from May to November 2026?
- November 3, 2026: Strike 3 Holdings filed 21 new Texas cases in the Northern and Southern Districts.
- October 30, 2026: Strike 3 Holdings filed 18 new Texas cases in Austin, San Antonio and Sherman (our report).
- September 14, 2026: A Sherman federal judge entered a $42,000 default judgment with a permanent injunction in 4:22-cv-00880 (read the opinion).
- August 26, 2026: Houston case 4:26-cv-03009 closed after a subscriber’s motion to quash and Strike 3 Holdings’ notice of dismissal.
- June 15, 2026: nationally, 404 Media reported that a federal judge in California let Strike 3 Holdings’ case against Meta Platforms go forward. That case does not change the process for Texas subscribers.
What does this mean if you received an ISP letter in Texas?
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.
- 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 district and courthouse prefix to the table above to see where your case sits.
- Do not ignore it. The Sherman default judgment shows what can happen when a named defendant does not respond. Our ISP letter guide, 2026 subpoena guide and Texas subpoena guide walk through each step.
Many people we talk with want a quiet, anonymous resolution. See how an anonymous resolution works and your options to resolve a Texas Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit.
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 clients across Texas in Strike 3 Holdings cases in all four federal districts.
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: Paul Sanders
Paul Sanders, an Associate at Antonelli Law®, defends people in BitTorrent copyright cases and in satellite and cable piracy matters. His work includes depositions, arbitrations, and cases in both state and federal court. He also mediated more than two dozen cases through the Circuit Court of Cook County Mediation Program.
Paul graduated with honors from the John Marshall Law School, earning both his law degree and a certificate in intellectual property. While there, he was Lead Articles Editor of the school’s intellectual property law review and taught oral argument to first- and second-year students. He is licensed in Illinois and admitted to the General Bar of the Northern District of Illinois. He handles the BitTorrent consultation from start to finish: he reads the ISP letter with you, then either pursues a quiet settlement or helps defend the case in court, whichever fits.
Phone: (312) 201-8310. Email: paul@antonelli-law.com.
Clients Appreciate Our Communication & Results
Here is just one client review of Paul Sanders. Click the link below for many others.
Posted by anonymous | October 14, 2025 | Hired Attorney
Great Attorney
“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.”
Got an ISP letter 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.
Paul Sanders
Melissa Ross
Jeffrey Antonelli
Alec Dardis
Frequently asked questions about Strike 3 Holdings Texas lawsuits
Do I need a Texas lawyer for a Strike 3 Holdings case?
No. Strike 3 Holdings Texas lawsuits are federal copyright cases. Antonelli Law® handles Strike 3 Holdings matters in federal courts nationwide, including the Southern, Western, Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas, and you can work with us by phone, email, and secure upload.
How many Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits were filed in Texas from May to October 2026?
Based on the dockets reviewed as of November 4, 2026, Strike 3 Holdings filed 193 Texas federal lawsuits from May 3 through November 2, 2026, compared with 168 in the prior six months, a 14.9% increase.
Which Texas federal court has the most Strike 3 Holdings cases?
The Southern District of Texas, mainly the Houston courthouse location, had 76 of the 193 cases. The Western District had 64, the Northern District had 47 and the Eastern District had 6.
Why did Houston have no new cases in October 2026?
The Southern and Northern Districts each received a large batch on September 25, 2026, and the October 30, 2026 batch went only to the Western and Eastern Districts. The docket entries do not explain the timing. The next batch, on November 3, 2026, went to the Northern and Southern Districts: 8 Dallas cases and 13 Houston and Galveston cases.
Can Strike 3 Holdings get a money judgment in Texas?
Yes, if a named defendant does not respond. On September 14, 2026, a Sherman federal judge entered a default judgment for $42,000, the $750 statutory minimum for each of 56 works, plus a permanent injunction. Responding on time avoids that outcome.
What if I did not download anything?
The person who pays for the internet account is not always the person who used it. Shared Wi-Fi, roommates, guests and family members are common in these cases. 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 Texas: 18 new cases (October 30, 2026 filings)
- Your options to resolve your Texas Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit
- Got a subpoena from Strike 3 Holdings in Texas?
- 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: Southern District of Texas, Western District of Texas, Northern District of Texas and Eastern District of Texas.
Data note: counts and rulings in this report are based on the federal dockets reviewed as of November 4, 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 4, 2026.
TORRENT DEFENDERS® is a federally registered trademark owned exclusively by the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Antonelli, Ltd. dba Antonelli Law®.
Pennsylvania Hit! First Strike 3, now MALIBU MEDIA LLC Files
Chicago Defendant Fights ME2 Productions Movie Lawsuit On His Own – Court Says No But Can Try Motion to Quash Subpoena Again – Antonelli Law Defense
Strike 3 Defendants Receiving Charter ISP Notices – ISP Subpoena Defense
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.