It is one thing to sue an accused defendant as a “John Doe” defendant. As a John Doe Defendant, the accused defendant is still anonymous. Yes, he is receiving ISP subpoena notification letters from his ISP, but the world does not yet know that he has been accused of software or movie piracy.
The “Anonymous” John Doe
As a John Doe… an ANONYMOUS John Doe, he can still interact with the plaintiff attorney (obviously better and smarter to have an attorney do it). He can have his attorney argue the legal points, he can argue whether he actually did the downloads or not, he can even negotiate a settlement of the claims against him… all while being an ANONYMOUS* John Doe.
Dangers of “Anonymous” Settlements with IP-based Lawsuits
NOTE: It’s probably a good idea to take mention that an accused John Doe Defendant is merely mentioned by his accused IP address <– the IP address his internet service provider (ISP) assigned him for the 24-48 hours that they leased that IP address to him. The danger in settling anonymously is that some copyright attorneys attempt to phrase an “anonymous” settlement as being “John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address 108.124.24.4,” meaning, one accused IP address only. If an accused downloader is a regular movie downloader, he likely has OTHER IP ADDRESSES that were assigned to him.
[While that article referenced Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits, the topic of “anonymous settlements” is still very relevant.]
It goes without saying that common sense, settling the claims against you for ONE IP ADDRESS ONLY does not automatically settle ALL claims against you for ALL IP ADDRESSES you ever had. This is something that an attorney should negotiate in an agreement (obviously using the correct terminology).
The danger of settling anonymously is that the plaintiff attorney can take your money, say thank you, and then turn around and ask for another settlement for another movie title that you downloaded. This unending spiral of events could frustrate anybody. Obviously your attorney should be aware of the ONE IP ADDRESS PROBLEM and he should consider it in his settlement release of liability.
Kerry Culpepper’s Colorado Lawsuit… where he named and served his defendants.
So back to Kerry Culpepper and his movie lawsuits. As you can see from this screenshot, Kerry Culpepper sued on behalf of Fallen Productions, Inc. for the unlawful download of their “Angel Has Fallen” movie. Pictured below is is recent Fallen Productions Inc. v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 1:20-cv-03170) lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (federal court).
Fallen Productions Inc. v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 1:20-cv-03170) filed in the District of Colorado
Fallen Productions, Inc. et al. v. Harry B. and DOE Defendants (Case No. 1:20-cv-00004)
Copyright Trolls
“I am not calling all movie companies who sue for the unlawful download, streaming, or viewing of their copyrighted movies “copyright trolls,” but when there is a pattern of lawsuits — all by a specific movie company, or as I have written about before, a conglomerate of movie companies — you must raise the question of whether this company is trying to legitimately enforce their copyright rights, or whether they are trying to make a quick “multi-thousand-dollar settlement” from each defendant… just as a copyright troll would.“
But again, Kerry Culpepper’s movie lawsuits are different… not because they are asking for multi-thousand-dollar settlements from each accused defendant (they are), but because of what Kerry Culpepper wants.
Kerry Culpepper does not appear to be interested in the money. Yes, a few thousand dollars sounds like a lot of money for his clients (and it is).
But it is starting to appear to me that Culpepper IP is more interested in going after the ISPs and the VPN providers. Why? Because it is the SAFE HARBOR IMMUNITY given to ISPs that I believe he is trying to break.
Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) “safe harbor” rules, ISPs have not been liable for infringing traffic (e.g., movie downloads) that happen on their network.
Obviously each ISP has in its terms of service (TOS) that using their network for copyright infringement is reason for the ISP to terminate that account holder’s ISP internet account. But to my awareness, they rarely [if ever] cancel their customer’s account for violations of the terms of service when that account holder downloads or streams a movie from an unauthorized website.
Why I believe Culpepper IP want to get around the DMCA Safe Harbor Rules
I understand that Kerry Culpepper is looking to circumvent the safe harbor rules and he wants to force the ISPs to cooperate with his requests.
He likely wants to do this without him needing to go to the federal court and file a “John Doe” copyright infringement lawsuit every time he learns that “some guy did something.”
Really, I understand that he just wants to contact the ISP and have them disclose the real identity of the account holder… without lawsuits… without subpoenas… without Hawaii Rule 521(h) lawsuits… and without going to court at all.
Why do I think this? Because [among other reasons I am still confirming], in his questionnaire to accused internet users, he asked, “whether or not your ISP sent you any warning notices concerning infringing activity.”
^^^ Why would he ask this? ^^^
[In Culpepper IP’s e-mails], his $950 settlement demands are not merely, “pay me and I’ll decide not to sue you in federal court for copyright infringement.” No. Rather, with his settlements, he is asking accused internet users to provide a signed declaration detailing:
1) “which file sharing client you used to reproduce the motion picture;”
2) “which website or business promoted the file sharing client to you;” and
3) “whether or not your ISP sent you any warning notices concerning infringing activity.”
Reference: “The Truth about why Culpepper IP is sending settlement demand EMAILS to accused internet users,” written on 9/16/2020.
What does Culpepper demonstrate from the Fallen Productions Inc. Colorado Lawsuit?
In this lawsuit in Colorado, you see that after some initial pushback from the judge on PERSONAL JURISDICTION issues, Kerry Culpepper first dismissed a few defendants (presumably those who settled), and then he turned around and NAMED AND SERVED a handful of defendants.
What can we take from this? What can a judge take from this? That Kerry Culpepper is not interested in the John Doe. He is not interested in their money. He is not even interested in their alleged infringement of his movie clients’ movies.
My thought: He wants their DATA to go after BIGGER FISH.
Again, why would he ask the three questions in his e-mail settlement demand e-mails? Because Kerry Culpepper wants to look past the defendants and go after his real target — the ISPs who allow their subscribers to download films and movies on their internet networks in violation of the copyright holder’s copyright rights.
Understanding that Kerry Culpepper is engaging in “lawfare” (legal war) against piracy-based websites, we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC suggest that Culpepper is using these $950 settlement demand e-mails to build a portfolio of evidence against the piracy-based websites.[“Lawfare” is defined as using legal systems and institutions to achieve a goal. It can be the misuse of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or de-legitimizing them.]
Again, I am just reporting here. Yes, I am aware of the hundreds, maybe thousands of accused individuals who received e-mails directly from Culpepper IP (now from someone @culpepperip.com).
I still think that Culpepper has a bigger plan, and that plan is NOT the settlement or the John Doe Defendant.
What should I do if I am NAMED AND SERVED as a defendant?
To the accused downloaders of Kerry’s Colorado case — what should you do? Well, he NAMED AND SERVED you. This means that you are no longer a “John Doe Defendant,” but you are now a “Named and Served” Defendant.
I have written a “walkthrough” article on what to do once you are named and served. I called it, “NAMED AND SERVED AS A DEFENDANT.“
And for reference, this is article very different from the other “walkthrough” article I have written on what to do when you are accused of being a John Doe Defendant.
The point is — once named and served [as the defendants from the Colorado court were] — you are accused of copyright infringement for downloading one or more movies without a license.
Whether you like it or not, you are now “in litigation,” which means that you have procedural deadlines and responsibilities according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (F.R.C.P) on what you must do next before you miss the deadline to file an answer with the court and Culpepper asks the court for a judgement against you.
If for some reason I won’t take you as a client, I will still happily spend time with you on the phone to answer your questions.
I will happily also refer you to an attorney in your state who is competent to represent you in this case. I have never taken a referral fee, but I still believe that even if I can’t help you — at the very least, I do my best to put you in the hands of an attorney who can help you.
Public Policy Letter to Judges on Copyright Issues
Lastly, it has been quite a while since I’ve revisited the “Public Policy Letter to Judges” article that I wrote in 2012 (and edited in 2023 to avoid online censorship), but I wanted to take a moment and mention that this letter has been sent to judges across the US… not only by me, but by many activist individuals who have an interest in keeping copyright trolls out of the federal courts.
While the “copyright troll” lawsuits have changed somewhat since we wrote that in 2012, the copyright laws themselves and the “uneven playing field” that I describe in this letter (this link is a .pdf attachment) is still very real, and very valid.
Now, as I did almost TEN YEARS AGO, I invite you to make this letter your own and to inform judges about the problems with copyright attorneys who sue John Doe defendants for the purpose of extracting a quick settlement. You do not need to be a defendant to send this letter.
And as always, e-mail me or contact me if I can be of assistance to you.
CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it for my eyes only, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
Strike 3 Holdings LLC has been on a tear, filing lawsuits across the US. This time, when they file lawsuits against unknown “John Doe” Defendants in the Federal Courts, do they already know the identities of each of these defendants?
It was only a matter of time before Strike 3 Holdings sued Miami-Dade defendants in the Federal Courts.
I have been saying for months that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC would begin suing the thousands of accused defendants in the federal courts that they sorted through in their Miami-Dade, Florida “Bill of Discovery” lawsuits.
All of 2020, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC has been using Florida’s “Bill of Discovery” to force ISPs to uncover the identities of THOUSANDS of defendants. However, not one defendant was sued in the Miami-Dade, Florida County court for the copyright infringement they were accused of.
Why must Strike 3 Holdings file lawsuits against thousands of former Miami-Dade defendants in the Federal Courts? Couldn’t they sue them in the Miami-Dade, FL County Court?
A bit of law here for those that are new to the topic:
ANSWER #1) PERSONAL JURISDICTION. A court may not hear a lawsuit against a defendant when that court does not have power or control over that defendant. They must have jurisdiction over that defendant, and this is accomplished most frequently by the defendant living in the state where the lawsuit is filed.
ANSWER #2) SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION as it applies to copyright cases. Copyright infringement cases may only be brought in FEDERAL COURTS.
Strike 3 Holdings CANNOT sue an accused defendant for copyright infringement in a STATE OR COUNTY court (Miami-Dade is a County Court, not a Federal Court). Copyright infringement lawsuits can only be brought in a FEDERAL court.
Which federal court? They must sue the defendant in the U.S. District Court for the District [state] in which HE LIVES.
Thousands of defendants were implicated in the Miami-Dade County, Florida Court, but most of them DID NOT LIVE IN FLORIDA. Thus, the Florida courts likely had NO jurisdiction over any of the out-of-state defendants.
EVENTUALLY, Strike 3 Holdings would sue the defendants in FEDERAL COURTS.
I was sure that these THOUSANDS of Strike 3 Miami-Dade defendants would eventually be sued in the federal courts.
For this reason, I went back to August, 2020 (~6 months) to confirm whether they have started suing defendants in federal courts again, and the answer was a big “uh huh.”
*UPDATED* NUMBER OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LAWSUITS FILED IN FEDERAL COURTS EACH MONTH.
As far as I can glean from the records of which cases were filed when and where, this is what I have come up with:
Number of Lawsuits filed as of April 30, 2021 (04-2021): 88 New Cases (and counting). Number of Lawsuits filed in March, 2021 (03-2021): 68 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in February, 2021 (02-2021): 77 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in January, 2021 (01-2021): 132 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in December, 2020 (12-2020): 115 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in November, 2020 (11-2020): 85 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in October, 2020 (10-2020): 138 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in September, 2020 (09-2020): 114 New Cases. Number of Lawsuits filed in August, 2020 (08-2020): 114 New Cases.
Total Number of New Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits filed in Federal Courts across the US in the last six months: 565 New Cases.
Why are all of the Federal Court Strike 3 Cases against “JOHN DOE” defendants?
In my gleaning, I found it interesting that all of the Federal Court lawsuits were filed against JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS. This was strange to me, because in all likelihood, we knew that Strike 3 already obtained the accused internet user’s name and address through the Miami-Dade Bill of Discovery lawsuits. So why are they still suing them as John Does?
A “JOHN DOE” Defendant is merely a PLACEHOLDER for the real Defendant.
A plaintiff sues a John Doe defendant when the identity of the defendant is still unknown. The John Doe is merely a placeholder, only to be replaced by the actual defendant’s name when the plaintiff attorney amends the complaint and “names and serves” a defendant.
QUESTION: Why sue accused defendants as JOHN DOE placeholders when they already know the ISP subscriber’s identity from the Miami-Dade lawsuits?
If Strike 3 Holdings already learned the identity of each of these accused John Doe Defendants when they were implicated as defendants in the former Strike 3 Miami-Dade lawsuits in the Florida county court, then WHY would they suggest* to the federal courts that they do not know the identity of the defendant when they sue them as a John Doe?
* I used the term “suggest” to avoid an implication that they were outright lying to the federal courts. At the bottom of this article, I explain 1) why them suing as John Doe Defendants may be appropriate (maybe they did not do research as to who actually did the download), and 2) that it is actually better for a defendant to be sued as a John Doe before he is forced into litigation to answer the claims against him (e.g., so that he can file a protective order to protect his identity, etc.).
ANSWER: It is more convenient to sue all of the defendants as JOHN DOE placeholders rather than litigating against each defendant.
CONVENIENCE. If Strike 3 Holdings sued each of these 694 defendant using their real names (e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Daniel TrueName), they would effectively have 694 cases running in the “litigation” stage concurrently.
This means that they would have to pay process servers to serve defendants at their 694 different locations across the US.
Each of the defendants would have to file an answer with the court within 21 days or face default, and Strike 3 would want to file responses to those answers.
Then, Strike 3 Holdings LLC would have 694 separate case management hearings, where each of their attorneys across the US (usually one Strike 3 Holdings attorney covering 1-3 states or territories) would need to show up in federal courtrooms across the US setting deadlines for each of their lawsuits to come up with the evidence.
Then, they would need to arrange, complete, and respond to and participate in depositions and digital forensic searches for each of these defendants… AT THE SAME TIME.
qimono / Pixabay
PRETENDING not to know the identities of the John Doe defendants is part of their SCHEME.
Can you imagine Strike 3 Holdings, LLC trying to litigate 694 lawsuits at the same time?
If Strike 3 Holdings, LLC pretends NOT to know the identities of each of the defendants (while they already do from the Miami-Dade Bill of Discovery lawsuits), they receive MANY EXTRA MONTHS to solicit settlements from the accused defendants before they are required to name and serve the accused defendants.
Whether their lawyers actually sat in a room and planned this out, or whether this was an unexpected consequence [of them 1) suing first in the Miami-Dade County Court to expose the identities of the ISP account holders, and then 2) suing the accused defendants in the federal courts to actually file copyright infringement lawsuits against those same defendants], you must admit that this was a genius plan as far as strategizing how to “game” the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to maximize their ability to “solicit” settlements from each and every accused defendant.
Here is how the scheme would play out:
SCHEME ELEMENT #1: PRETEND to the Federal Courts that you do not know the identity of the JOHN DOE defendants (when they secretly do).
Instead of suing a defendant by his name (and starting the litigation process against the defendant), an easier solution for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is for them to to “pretend” to the Federal Court that they do not know who you are. They sue you as a “John Doe,” or a “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX,” and ask the court to authorize them to send a subpoena to the internet service provider (ISP) and force them to [again] share the identity of the ISP account subscriber who was assigned a particular IP address at a particular date and time. Then, they sit back and comfortably wait for the settlement requests to roll in.
The judges [still oblivious of the Miami-Dade cases] approve their request to have the subpoenas sent to the ISPs. Each ISP is instructed by court order to hand over the identities of the ISP account holders (even though Strike 3 Holdings, LLC “secretly” already knows who they are).
SCHEME ELEMENT #2: SETTLE CASES for weeks or months while the ISPs slowly comply with their subpoena requests.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC then waits weeks or months for the ISPs to comply. During this time, they wait for all the panicked defendants [who were former Miami-Dade lawsuit defendants] to panic and call them to arrange a settlement. All of this time, the accused defendants are “John Doe” defendants, and Strike 3 accomplished this without naming and serving a SINGLE defendant. Genius.
The plaintiff attorneys in this mass bittorrent lawsuit scheme then settle as many cases as they can before the 90-day deadline for them to name and serve the defendant expires (according to recent FRCP procedural law changes, plaintiffs now have only 90 days before they need to amend the complaint and sue the actual downloader in the place of the John Doe placeholder).
SCHEME ELEMENT #3: RELY ON THE ISPs BEING SLOW to respond to the subpoenas.
The ISPs are notoriously slow in producing the identities of their subscribers. No doubt Strike 3 Holdings is aware of this. In fact, they could be relying on this to give them extra time — sometimes weeks or months — to solicit a settlement from each John Doe defendant.
SCHEME ELEMENT #4: BLAME THE ISPs for not complying with the subpoena in time, and asking the court for an EXTENSION OF TIME.
If the ISP does not timely share the identities of each of the subpoena requests (as they often do not through no fault of their own), the plaintiff attorney gets close to the 90-day deadline without knowing who is the ISP account holder behind the accused IP address. Strike 3 Holdings is thus unable to name and serve the defendant, as a result, they ask the court for an additional 90 days, blaming the ISP for not producing the identities of the account holders in time.
“Judge, we cannot do our due diligence in investigating whether this John Doe Defendant is the one who downloaded my client’s movies because the ISP has not yet told us WHO this defendant is!”
– Plaintiff Attorney
THE DIRTY SECRET: STRIKE 3 KNOWS ALL ALONG THE REAL IDENTITY OF THE JOHN DOE DEFENDANT.
The dirty secret is that ALL ALONG, Strike 3 Holdings likely already knows the identity of each of the defendants [from the Miami-Dade cases], and they are already probably in communication with them trying to get them to settle the claims against them for as much as possible. From a “federal rules” procedural perspective, it’s the perfect scheme.
Thus, if you were once a defendant in the Miami-Dade lawsuits, and now you are an accused defendant in the federal court in the state in which you reside, now you understand how and why you appear to have been “sued twice,” (first in the Miami-Dade, Florida County Court, and second, in the federal court in the state in which you live).
Is this scheme deceptive or evil?
My opinion? Really, no. Even if Strike 3 Holdings LLC obtained the identity of the ISP account holder in the Miami-Dade lawsuit, technically, the ISP account holder often is not the actual downloader who downloaded Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted videos.
ANSWER #1: NO. Strike 3 might not yet have any idea who the defendant should be.
Often the account holder is a parent, or, a wife, or a landlord, and the one who did the unlawful downloading is not the same person who pays the internet bill. It is also possible with the huge number of defendants implicated in the Miami-Dade Strike 3 cases, Strike 3 might not have even gotten to many or even most of the accused defendants.
So they might not even know whether the ISP account holder is the one they would like to sue.
ANSWER #2: NO. An accused defendant would likely prefer to be sued as a “John Doe” placeholder rather than be “named and served” at the outset.
Even from the point of view of the accused defendant, a defendant who is “named and served” is thrown head-first into costly litigation.
Being sued as an “anonymous” John Doe Defendant allows that defendant to have time to retain an attorney, learn about the lawsuits, and decide on what options they would like to take in how to respond to or approach the accusations against them.
As a John Doe, they can file a motion to quash the subpoena (if they do not live in the state in which they were sued), or they can have an attorney contact the plaintiff for them and discuss settlement options. If they did not do the downloading, a defendant could make use of the valuable John Doe phase (and the 90 days they usually get before they are actually named and served) to develop a legal strategy to fight the claims against them.
So in my opinion, no, there is nothing evil or malicious about being sued as a John Doe. I simply find it silly that procedurally, suing defendants in federal court as John Does (while they already know who they are) is a smart way to steal time by making use of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the inherent slowness of the process.
List of Recent Strike 3 Holdings Federal Court Filings by State
Here is a list of Strike 3 Holdings filings in the Federal Courts for each state in which they have recently sued defendants:
California
California Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Lincoln Bandlow of Bandlow Law.
Lincoln Bandlow used to work for Fox Rothschild, LLP, where he ran all of the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys and their cases across the US. But since the shake-up in May, 2019, he left Fox Rothschild, LLP and started his own law firm.
I still think that Lincoln is behind the scenes running each of the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases filed across the US, but I no longer think he has sole authority and decision-making power. I believe that John Atkin (NJ) and Jackie James (NY/CT) also have similar power and authority.
Below are the recently filed Strike 3 Holdings California cases:
*NEW* CALIFORNIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (1/16/2021 – 4/30/2021)
*NEW* Strike 3 Holdings California Central District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.180.12.165 (Case No. 2:21-cv-02928) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.58.175.65 (Case No. 2:21-cv-02930) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.204.220.69 (Case No. 8:21-cv-00635) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.224.25.84 (Case No. 2:21-cv-02933) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.142.213.194 (Case No. 2:21-cv-02935) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.224.168.49 (Case No. 8:21-cv-00636) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.117.160.181 (Case No. 2:21-cv-02940) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.175.67.162 (Case No. 2:21-cv-02943) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.2.212.173 (Case No. 2:21-cv-02951) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.28.150.20 (Case No. 2:21-cv-02953) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.98.248.99 (Case No. 8:21-cv-00637) v. John Doe (Case Nos. 2:21-cv-01099, 2:21-cv-01100) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.34.36.30 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00217) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.95.92.149 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00218) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.155.11.204 (Case No. 2:21-cv-02427)
*NEW* Strike 3 Holdings California Eastern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe using IP address 67.161.168.106 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00199)
*NEW* Strike 3 Holdings California Northern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.8.1.80 (Case No. 3:21-cv-02457) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.199.79.216 (Case No. 5:21-cv-02482) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.193.0.117 (Case No. 5:21-cv-02483) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.199.1.91 (Case No. 3:21-cv-02464) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.211.181.136 (Case No. 3:21-cv-02478) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.226.164.202 (Case No. 5:21-cv-02484) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.89.35.88 (Case No. 5:21-cv-02485) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.206.72.115 (Case No. 3:21-cv-02466) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.227.167.191 (Case No. 5:21-cv-02486) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.228.91.58 (Case No. 5:21-cv-02479) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.30.93.48 (Case No. 5:21-cv-02487) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.252.16.149 (Case No. 5:21-cv-02467) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.11.11.138 (Case No. 3:21-cv-02480) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.214.111.203 (Case No. 3:21-cv-02469) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.214.236.234 (Case No. 5:21-cv-02471) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.113.185.97 (Case No. 3:21-cv-02474) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.179.20.238 (Case No. 3:21-cv-02475) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.34.225.90 (Case No. 5:21-cv-02481) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.92.214.141 (Case No. 5:21-cv-02492) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.147.138.110 (Case No. 3:21-cv-02728) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 73.162.81.234 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00760) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.222.146.162 (Case No. 5:21-cv-01958)
*NEW* Strike 3 Holdings California Southern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:21-cv-00590, 3:21-cv-00591, 3:21-cv-00592, 3:21-cv-00593, 3:21-cv-00594, 3:21-cv-00229, 3:21-cv-00232, 3:21-cv-00230, 3:21-cv-00147, 3:21-cv-00148, 3:21-cv-00478)
Unfortunately, I know this makes it look messy, but I am leaving the older cases here as well because many of them are still alive:
*OLDER* CALIFORNIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (8/2020 – 1/16/2021)
*OLDER* Strike 3 Holdings California Central District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case Nos. 8:20-cv-01520, 8:20-cv-01569, 8:20-cv-01570) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 104.173.206.190 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07416) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 76.91.200.210 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07481) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.184.69.226 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07653) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.118.46.15 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07654) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.119.113.170 (Case No. 8:20-cv-01571) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.85.40.62 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07655) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.241.14.133 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07656) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.4.28.148 (Case No. 8:20-cv-01572) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.243.45.17 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02354) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.24.133.61 (Case No. 2:20-cv-11353) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.111.30.12 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02434) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.219.68.87 (Case No. 8:21-cv-00057) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 47.154.220.217 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10587) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.0.80.78 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02241) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.60.170.157 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02245) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.60.172.66 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10802) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.244.253.35 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02242) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.1.153.210 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02246) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.153.243.248 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10805) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.189.111.246 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02243) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.24.231.69 (Case No. 8:20-cv-02244) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 137.25.36.70 (Case No. 2:20-cv-09069) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.145.221.141 (Case No. 5:20-cv-02056) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.158.161.8 (Case No. 5:20-cv-02057) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.34.222.102 (Case No. 2:20-cv-09087) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 104.34.170.255 (Case No. 2:20-cv-09337) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 104.34.67.34 (Case No. 2:20-cv-09854) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 45.50.173.181 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08054) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 47.41.240.176 (Case No. 5:20-cv-01907) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 76.91.18.185 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08444) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.184.86.157 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08639) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.118.216.95 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08643) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.50.11.3 (Case No. 8:20-cv-01814) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.144.166.78 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08646) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.149.144.54 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08647) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.155.229.160 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08648) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.157.67.65 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08649) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.93.104.47 (Case No. 2:20-cv-08645)
*OLDER* Strike 3 Holdings California Eastern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 73.48.141.109 (Case No. 2:20-at-01120) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.87.193.119 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01989) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 173.87.173.243 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02004) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.176.32.230 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02125) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.197.77.235 (Case No. 2:20-at-01042) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.197.77.235 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02126) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.202.42.143 (Case No. 2:20-at-01043) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.202.42.143 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02127) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.205.185.83 (Case No. 2:20-at-01044) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.205.185.83 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02128) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.195.184.121 (Case No. 2:20-at-01045) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.195.184.121 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02129) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.239.135.113 (Case No. 2:20-at-01046) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.239.135.113 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02133) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.114.223.20 (Case No. 2:20-at-01047) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.114.223.20 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02134) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.127.160.138 (Case No. 2:20-at-01048) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.127.160.138 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02135) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.229.215.210 (Case No. 2:20-at-01049) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.229.215.210 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02136) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.100.167.93 (Case No. 2:20-at-01050) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.100.167.93 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02144) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.118.17.70 (Case No. 2:20-at-01051) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.118.17.70 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02145) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.185.0.214 (Case No. 2:20-at-01052) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.185.0.214 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02146) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.51.2.156 (Case No. 2:20-at-01053) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.51.2.156 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02147)
*OLDER* Strike 3 Holdings California Northern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 73.202.36.45 (Case No. 3:20-cv-05836) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.198.44.245 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05911) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.189.241.101 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05912) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.231.253.167 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05913) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.231.93.207 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05914) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.103.213.49 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05915) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.207.137.235 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05917) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 67.180.64.55 (Case No. 4:20-cv-05993) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.160.193.21 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09000) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.179.214.149 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09465) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.50.7.2 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09461) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.133.147.78 (Case No. 3:20-cv-09462) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.209.231.168 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09466) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.217.224.146 (Case No. 4:20-cv-09467) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.234.248.70 (Case No. 3:20-cv-09463) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.234.248.70 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09463) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.15.13.216 (Case No. 3:20-cv-09464) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.13.224.197 (Case No. 4:20-cv-09457) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.151.10.104 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09468) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.155.36.73 (Case No. 4:20-cv-09458) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.95.164.72 (Case No. 5:20-cv-09469) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.213.155.155 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00250) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.216.241.80 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00251) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.68.110.208 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00260) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.72.122.64 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00252) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.230.114.61 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00262) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.237.79.93 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00263) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.237.79.93 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00263) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.238.126.205 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00264) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.238.127.214 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00266) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.116.40.51 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00253) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.116.45.238 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00254) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.78.202.145 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00255) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.209.13.199 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00256) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.52.89.208 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00257) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.16.100.126 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00258) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.55.164.87 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00259) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.56.119.158 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00294) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.137.64.74 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00296) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.219.196.95 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00297) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.227.165.177 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00298) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.227.167.168 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00299) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.123.139.178 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00285) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.110.139.140 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00301) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.4.202.18 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00302) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.220.32.134 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00303) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.119.192.121 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00288) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.152.112.110 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00291) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.162.144.107 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00304) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.47.67.73 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00292) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.55.162.48 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00293) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.72.197 (Case No. 3:20-cv-07952) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.15.26.232 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07953) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.189.55.160 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07950) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.126.151.68 (Case No. 3:20-cv-07951) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.196.181.174 (Case No. 3:20-cv-08361) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.196.183.6 (Case No. 5:20-cv-08353) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.199.77.48 (Case No. 5:20-cv-08362) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.213.155.207 (Case No. 4:20-cv-08363) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.192.22.79 (Case No. 5:20-cv-08354) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.254.149.216 (Case No. 3:20-cv-08364) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.77.233.252 (Case No. 4:20-cv-08355) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.93.40.154 (Case No. 3:20-cv-08356) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.10.232.35 (Case No. 5:20-cv-08357) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.125.128.214 (Case No. 3:20-cv-08365) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.25.141.208 (Case No. 4:20-cv-08366) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.215.145.39 (Case No. 5:20-cv-08351) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.247.182.196 (Case No. 5:20-cv-08358) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.119.68.41 (Case No. 4:20-cv-08352) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.4.124.9 (Case No. 4:20-cv-08359) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.202.100.49 (Case No. 3:20-cv-06902) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.13.209.224 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07419) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.15.67.119 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07422) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.183.240.137 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07424) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.204.168.222 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07426) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.13.60.123 (Case No. 3:20-cv-07477) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.194.47.216 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07479) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.193.0.46 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07484) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.201.185.183 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07485) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.212.154.244 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07486) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.226.165.135 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07487) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.249.130.93 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07470) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.88.90.234 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07488) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.250.227.199 (Case No. 3:20-cv-07480) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.78.200.245 (Case No. 3:20-cv-07474) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.252.18.42 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07489) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.52.94.123 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07490) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.57.10.47 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07481) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.34.225.112 (Case No. 4:20-cv-07482) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.37.246.49 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07491) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.47.20.77 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07483) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.73.38.234 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07492) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.88.47.25 (Case No. 5:20-cv-07475) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 67.160.239.169 (Case No. 3:20-cv-06223)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 76.26.184.222 (Case No. 6:21-cv-00727) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:21-cv-00249) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.255.134.68 (Case No. 8:21-cv-00348) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 9:21-cv-80322) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 1:21-cv-20587) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.56.52.16 (Case No. 9:21-cv-80519) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 107.220.245.119 (Case No. 1:21-cv-20954) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:20-cv-02315) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:20-cv-02362) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 75.46.164.72 (Case No. 1:20-cv-23559) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 204.195.147.121 (Case No. 1:20-cv-24019)
Strike 3 Holdings Illinois Northern District cases:
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.250.118.53 (Case No. 1:21-cv-02005) v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.25.50.35 (Case No. 1:21-cv-02011) v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.3.233.47 (Case No. 1:21-cv-02012) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.73.244.191 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00907) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.75.91.167 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00911) v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.138.239.145 (Case No. 1:20-cv-07144) v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.192.141.199 (Case No. 1:20-cv-07147) v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.243.0.133 (Case No. 1:20-cv-07154) v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.112.164.217 (Case No. 1:20-cv-07151) v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.22.131.151 (Case No. 1:20-cv-07142) v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.138.108.85 (Case No. 1:20-cv-07159) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 104.188.235.223 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00116) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 107.215.183.93 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00138) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.204.224.215 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00165) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.5.19.137 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00166) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.5.19.137 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00166) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.102.111.159 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00167) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.135.136.160 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00172) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.137.152.98 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00175) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.177.128.85 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00177) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.47.185.219 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00179) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.73.153.252 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00180) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-06518, 1:20-cv-06519, 1:20-cv-06526, 1:20-cv-06527, 1:20-cv-06528, 1:20-cv-05842, 1:20-cv-05842)
Maryland Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Elsy Marleni Ramos Velasquez of Clark Hill PLC.
Elsy Marleni Ramos Velasquez of Clark Hill PLC (“Elsy Velasquez”) is the name of the Strike 3 Holdings attorney who is showing up for the current slew of Strike 3 filings in Maryland District Court. She showed up as a new attorney filing lawsuits for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC [if I recall correctly] shortly after Lincoln Bandlow left Fox Rothschild, LLP and started his new law firm.
She works out of Clark Hill PLC, and she works out of their Washington, DC office.
The first time I contacted Elsy Velasquez was in May, 2019 because she was the attorney that was taking over the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC Maryland cases after the shake-up of their attorneys.
It is important to note that after a hiatus of filings (probably due to the pandemic), Strike 3 Holdings, LLC has put a lot of faith in Elsy Velasquez by allowing her to file many cases on their behalf.
Strike 3 Holdings Michigan Eastern & Western District Cases
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 23.117.53.4 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10830) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 104.185.135.10 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00316) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.65.164.21 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13155) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 107.131.193.13 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13156) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 107.134.150.224 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13162) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 107.199.254.17 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13157) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 162.228.98.100 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13158) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 172.0.234.172 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13161) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 104.1.189.141 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10036) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 104.185.105.45 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10037) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 108.223.195.107 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10038) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 162.205.116.73 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10039) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 172.9.134.246 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10040) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 69.221.243.85 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10041) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 75.30.199.135 (Case No. 5:21-cv-10042) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 75.46.43.71 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10046) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 76.192.56.30 (Case No. 5:21-cv-10055) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.113.49.188 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10061) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.152.34.134 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10068) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.32.33.5 (Case No. 4:21-cv-10069) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.44.201.110 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10070) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.73.148.186 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10072) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 162.230.47.77 (Case No. 5:20-cv-12946) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 69.230.130.20 (Case No. 4:20-cv-12947) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.188.233.197 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12948) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.27.69.185 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12949) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.66.49.166 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12950) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.66.52.129 (Case No. 3:20-cv-12951) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.49.84.143 (Case No. 3:20-cv-13065) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 68.55.78.46 (Case No. 3:20-cv-12689) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 75.48.221.50 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01154) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.99.243.62 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01155) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.44.181.150 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01106)
New Jersey Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by John Atkin of The Atkin Firm, LLC.
John Atkin used to work for Fox Rothschild, LLP in New Jersey. John Atkin was the only one of the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys handling all of the New Jersey Strike 3 Holdings filings, however, at the time in which he was with Fox Rothschild, LLP, I did not get the sense that he had authority to negotiate the cases himself. Rather, it appeared as if he was local counsel filing cases for Lincoln Bandlow.
That changed in/around May, 2019. As you have read above, in my observation, John Atkin overthrew Lincoln Bandlow’s authority and carved out autonomy for himself among the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys in the hierarchy. By May, 2019, he already left Fox Rothschild, LLP and started his own law firm. I learned about this when I started seeing “The Atkin Firm, LLC” on the cases in which I was representing clients rather than Fox Rothschild, LLP.
I still think that Lincoln might still be the “boss” of the various Strike 3 Holdings attorneys across the US along with the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases, but it appears to me as if John Atkin is working on his own (maybe as a co-equal boss with Lincoln Bandlow and/or Jackie James), with sole authority and decision-making power over his cases.
For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey cases:
*UPDATED* NEW JERSEY STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (2021)
*UPDATED* Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.209.150 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10386) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.181.41 (Case No. 1:21-cv-10369) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.61.4.191 (Case No. 1:21-cv-10370) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.61.6.170 (Case No. 1:21-cv-10372) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.61.7.112 (Case No. 1:21-cv-10375) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.118.66 (Case No. 1:21-cv-10379) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.125.138 (Case No. 1:21-cv-10380) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.168.180.189 (Case No. 1:21-cv-10382) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.68.115.94 (Case No. 1:21-cv-10384) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.248.100.147 (Case No. 1:21-cv-10385) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.35.136.92 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10427) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.50.162.26 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10430) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.54.199.222 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10431) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.54.5.127 (Case No. 3:21-cv-10439) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.189.31 (Case No. 3:21-cv-10440) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.0.175 (Case No. 3:21-cv-10432) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.119.17 (Case No. 3:21-cv-10434) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.5.154 (Case No. 3:21-cv-10441) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.187.79.232 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10435) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.90.159.71 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10436) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.245.48 (Case No. 2:21-cv-10437) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.98.253 (Case No. 2:21-cv-03076) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.120.98 (Case No. 2:21-cv-03077) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.172.108 (Case No. 1:21-cv-03072) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.72.29 (Case No. 1:21-cv-03074) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.54.229.39 (Case No. 3:21-cv-03090) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.80.162 (Case No. 2:21-cv-03080) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.80.105 (Case No. 2:21-cv-03083) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.3.102 (Case No. 3:21-cv-03092) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.102.219.139 (Case No. 2:21-cv-03084) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.102.60.116 (Case No. 2:21-cv-03086) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.65.224 (Case No. 2:21-cv-03089) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.248.110.96 (Case No. 3:21-cv-03095) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.172.90.123 (Case No. 2:21-cv-06140) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.76.128.73 (Case No. 3:21-cv-06148)
And, because many of the older New Jersey Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases are still alive, I am leaving them here (below):
*OLDER* NEW JERSEY STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES
*OLDER* Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey District Court
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.27.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10182) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.114.252 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10183) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.126.57 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10184) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.245.115.134 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10177) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.102.216.227 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10205) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.108.155 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10217) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.133.178 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10219) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.39.224 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10220) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.185.130 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10222) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.41.90 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10223) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.35.204.190 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10224) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.78.195 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10225) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.39.170 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10226) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 70.105.172.99 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10227) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.127.201.146 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10228) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.201.138 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10229) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.0.130.74 (Case No. 1:20-cv-19551) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.131.126 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20171) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.40.219 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20172) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.77.141 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20173) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.248.215 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20174) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.5.189.100 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20175) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.50.195.75 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20182) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.123.36 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20183) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.162.123 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20184) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.2.119 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20176) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.49.247 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20178) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.104.23.154 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20179) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.104.34.125 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20186) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.245.115.104 (Case No. 1:20-cv-20170) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.242.225.188 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20187) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.242.46.82 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20180) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.242.54.46 (Case No. 2:20-cv-20181) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.109.191.190 (Case No. 3:20-cv-20189) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.75.94 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00593) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.168.148.228 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00594) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.102.211.26 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00582) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.121.80 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00583) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.130.45 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00584) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.86.32 (Case No. 3:21-cv-00595) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.225.75.239 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00586) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.225.77.87 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00588) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.242.46.97 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00590) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.109.148.107 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00591) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.109.157.165 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00592) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.228.136.123 (Case No. 2:20-cv-17193) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.47.214.229 (Case No. 2:20-cv-17195) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.80.147.85 (Case No. 2:20-cv-17186) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.87.47.217 (Case No. 3:20-cv-17190) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 68.192.3.59 (Case No. 2:20-cv-17191) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.234.93 (Case No. 2:20-cv-14324) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.216.71 (Case No. 2:20-cv-14325) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.103.83 (Case No. 1:20-cv-14321) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.35.188.15 (Case No. 2:20-cv-14329) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.54.155.12 (Case No. 2:20-cv-14408) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.209.232 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12939) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.242.205 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12941) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.91.220 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12943) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.104.205 (Case No. 1:20-cv-12934) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.35.56.231 (Case No. 3:20-cv-12963) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.5.232.221 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12945) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.54.216.219 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12948) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.54.227.250 (Case No. 3:20-cv-12967) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.240.88 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12951) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.127.183 (Case No. 1:20-cv-12936) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.172.236.131 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12953) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.187.159.15 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12954) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.68.118.218 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12955) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.76.193.98 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12956) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.172.12 (Case No. 2:20-cv-12958) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.141.51.212 (Case No. 2:20-cv-13499)
*NOTES TO SELF: There are TWO IMPORTANT reasons why Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is putting so much money into filing lawsuits in New Jersey:
1) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC almost lost New Jersey as a state in which they would be allowed by the federal court to sue defendants (for lawyers, it was bad case law). For a short while, judges stood up to Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and stopped them from being allowed to send subpoenas to ISPs to force the ISPs to hand over the subscriber information to them.
Apparently Strike 3 won that battle, so now they are taking advantage of that “WIN” and suing many defendants in New Jersey.
New York Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Jacqueline M. James (Jackie James) of The James Law Firm, PLLC.
Just as I described in the “Connecticut” section, Jackie James used to represent Malibu Media, LLC, another prolific copyright troll. Jackie was in charge of all of the Malibu Media, LLC cases filed in the New York federal courts.
I consider Jacqueline James to be a “boss” when categorizing her among the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys in their hierarchy.
It is important to note that Jacqueline James stopped representing Malibu Media, LLC because she dropped them as a client. She did not “swing from one branch to the next” by dropping one client in favor of a more profitable one. When she dropped Malibu Media, LLC as a client, she did not have another client.
It was only later that [I presume] Strike 3 Holdings contacted her and asked her to file copyright infringement lawsuits on their behalf. Today, she appears to have independent authority and control of her cases, and she is in charge of the Strike 3 Holdings federal court lawsuits filed in New York and more recently, in Connecticut.
When negotiating cases, Jacqueline James is known to be a difficult negotiator, but she is also fair. Be prepared to support everything you say with facts and if needed, documentation. Jackie James is the kind of attorney who does not simply take statements at face value, but she asks questions and follow-up questions… often which lead to uncomfortable conversations. Again, however, she is not known to gouge on settlement prices, but she is a tough in her approach.
For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings New York cases:
*UPDATED* NEW YORK STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (as of 4/30/2021)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.175.8.4 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00793) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.194.89.100 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00794) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 74.72.24.181 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00792) v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 207.38.228.176 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01236) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 100.12.211.171 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01552) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 100.38.242.212 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01553) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 100.38.72.102 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01554) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.14.11.6 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01555) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.29.0.164 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01557) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.29.27.167 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01579) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.30.23.135 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01580) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.46.174.46 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01581) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.68.79.220 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01582) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.77.8.219 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01583) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.125.44.92 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01584) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.116.237.13 (Case No. 1:21-cv-01585)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 66.108.211.199 (Case No. 1:20-cv-05608) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 207.38.164.46 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04676) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 100.37.16.119 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04492) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 100.38.114.55 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04484) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.27.76.152 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04493) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.41.227.188 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04486) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.52.52.131 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04494) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.56.236.25 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04495) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.77.240.203 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04496) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.129.228.80 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04487) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.23.34.26 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04498) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.105.65.41 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04500) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.167.46.179 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04488) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.190.222.158 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04489) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 72.69.240.87 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04490) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 72.89.244.123 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04501) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 96.232.109.63 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04502) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.113.61.117 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04491) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.116.126.78 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04503) v. John Doe Subscriber IP Address 100.37.0.82 (Case No. 1:20-cv-04483)
UPDATE: I am happy to share that while searching for Dawn Sciarrino (when writing up the Virginia cases), I could not understand why she would take Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as a client. However, searching for her, I found that Jackie James actually listed her as an attorney under her law firm. While I will post Dawn’s page under her state, because her we are discussing Jackie, you can find Jacqueline James’ profile and website here.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Jason M. Saruya of Clark Hill PLC.
Jason Saruya of Clark Hill PLC is the name of the attorney who is showing up for the Strike 3 filings in Pennsylvania District Court.
He works for Clark Hill PLC, and he works out of the Philadephia, PA office.
There is not much information about Jason Saruya, but from what I understand, he is a younger attorney, and he is probably working with Elsy Velasquez as his superior, as Elsy Velasquez was the attorney from Clark Hill PLC that took over the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC Maryland cases after the shake-up of their attorneys.
For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings Pennsylvania cases:
*UPDATED* PENNSYLVANIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (as of 4/30/2021)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.10.56 (Case No. 2:21-cv-01957) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.52.155.75 (Case No. 2:21-cv-01958) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.1.191 (Case No. 2:21-cv-01959) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.138.14 (Case No. 5:21-cv-01964) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.233.153 (Case No. 2:21-cv-01960) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.185.208.83 (Case No. 2:21-cv-01962) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.103.188.206 (Case No. 2:21-cv-01963) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.149.217 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00801) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.77.55 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00802) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.59.120.48 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00803) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.59.14.80 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00804) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.162.141.242 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00805) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.175.227.105 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00808) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.175.227.228 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00809) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.175.228.37 (Case No. 5:21-cv-00810) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.185.51.65 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00806) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.244.105.112 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00807) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.114.58.132 (Case No. 2:21-cv-01380) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.115.70.98 (Case No. 2:21-cv-01381) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 152.208.19.140 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00620) v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.55.231.231 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00709)
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.14.104.114 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04113) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.34.69.237 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04116) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.36.107.104 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04117) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.139.57 (Case No. 5:20-cv-04131) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.22.2 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04118) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.94.31.214 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04121) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.109.16.85 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04122) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.227.141.106 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04124) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.245.188.111 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04126) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.114.242.117 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04127) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.114.64.102 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04128) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.115.104.217 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04129) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.115.178.10 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04130) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.188.222.234 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04216) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.139.18 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06446) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.255.72 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06447) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.34.252.194 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06449) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.164.49 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06451) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.18.70 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06452) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.62.176.48 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06454) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.162.141.87 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06455) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.227.69.178 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06457) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.114.12.109 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06460) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.115.30.53 (Case No. 5:20-cv-06461) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.122.173 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00177) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.19.39.68 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00178) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.34.41.242 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00179) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.36.235.201 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00180) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.52.192.26 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00181) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 151.197.190.120 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00182) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 151.197.58.91 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00183) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.49.2.227 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00184) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.62.236.131 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00185) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.78.136.186 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00186) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.227.125.143 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00187) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.114.56.50 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00188) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.115.15.115 (Case No. 2:21-cv-00189) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.146.147 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05121) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.204.106 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05122) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.57.233 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05123) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.92.101 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05124) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.14.183.45 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05125) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.14.5.124 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05126) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.14.50.128 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05127) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.19.31.245 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05128) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.34.196.207 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05129) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.52.56.174 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05130) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 151.197.235.194 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05149) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.62.214.161 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05151) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.75.224.192 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05152) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.162.206.177 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05153) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.175.77.9 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05154) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.78.193.245 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05155) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.92.35.129 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05156) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.245.0.215 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05157) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.245.91.193 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05158) v. JOHN DOE INFRINGER IDENTIFIED AS USING IP ADDRESS 68.82.163.225 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05223) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.51.34 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04728) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.83.32 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04730) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.4.242.97 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04737) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.52.213.113 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04739) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 141.158.36.188 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04740) v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.245.77.13 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04743) v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-02374) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 173.67.155.109 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00064) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 72.72.164.54 (Case No. 1:21-cv-00065) v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-02147) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 98.117.12.231 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01937) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 74.99.146.183 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01780) Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Virginia
Virginia Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Dawn Marie Sciarrino of Sciarrino & Shubert, PLLC (more recently, I have found that she is working for Jacqueline James, the Strike 3 Holdings attorney for the NY/CT region).
Dawn Marie Sciarrino is the name of the attorney who is showing up for the Strike 3 filings in the Virginia federal court filings.
MY ORIGINAL WRITE-UP ON DAWN: Dawn Marie appears to be a partner in her law firm, and she works out of Centreville, VA.
There is not much information about Dawn Marie Sciarrino (even their https://www.sciarrino.com website was down when I tried to reach it).
From what I understand, she has been practicing as an attorney for many years. Her first bar was in New York in 1991, and she has represented clients before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and for the District of Columbia Circut.
What I do not understand is… [with her background, both educational and vocational] why in the world would she take Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as a client? This makes no sense to me.
Forrest Matthew Seger, III of Clark Hill (San Antonio), or Andy Nikolopoulos and David Grant Crooks, both from Fox Rothschild LLP.
For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings Texas cases:
*NEW* TEXAS STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (as of 4/30/2021)
Texas Eastern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 99.41.250.22 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00281) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 162.237.130.105 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00245) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 172.126.19.64 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00246) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 45.17.236.174 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00247) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 45.27.131.101 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00248) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 45.27.132.135 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00249) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 69.216.17.86 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00250) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 76.201.2.26 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00251) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 99.97.30.150 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00252) v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 104.188.245.130 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00243) v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 108.73.19.68 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00244) v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 99.97.30.150 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00253)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 172.125.31.185 (Case No. 4:21-cv-01426) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 207.243.216.28 (Case No. 4:21-cv-01427) v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 99.99.236.35 (Case No. 4:21-cv-01433) v. JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 104.181.1.207 (Case No. 4:21-cv-01421) v. JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 107.215.199.226 (Case No. 4:21-cv-01422) v. JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 107.221.140.159 (Case No. 4:21-cv-01423) v. JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 108.226.73.250 (Case No. 4:21-cv-01424) v. JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 162.195.194.1 (Case No. 4:21-cv-01425) v. JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 69.234.33.190 (Case No. 4:21-cv-01428) v. JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 70.233.168.133 (Case No. 4:21-cv-01429) v. JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 76.243.180.88 (Case No. 4:21-cv-01430) v. JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 99.163.116.29 (Case No. 4:21-cv-01431) v. JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 99.75.173.93 (Case No. 4:21-cv-01432)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 4:21-cv-01004, 4:21-cv-01005, 4:21-cv-01006, 4:21-cv-01007, 4:21-cv-01008, 4:21-cv-01009, 4:21-cv-01010, 4:21-cv-01011, 4:21-cv-01012, 4:21-cv-01013, 4:21-cv-01014, 4:21-cv-01015)
— FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC: Again, if you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit, 1. and 2. (below) are the TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:
CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
The purpose of this article is to specifically discuss the prospect of a Strike 3 Holdings Anonymous Settlement. A Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit targets users based on the activities taken by their IP address over a long period of time. Strike 3 Holdings copyright infringement lawsuits are filed with a federal court, Strike 3 Holdings subpoenas are sent to ISP subscribers, and after realizing that filing a motion to quash might not be the best option, deciding whether to negotiate a settlement or to fight becomes the main consideration.
Strike 3 Holdings settlements are very expensive — not because they ask for a lot of money for the download (or streaming) of one of their copyrighted adult films, but because they ask for the settlement of EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS MOVIES YOU MAY HAVE DOWNLOADED OVER THE COURSE OF YEARS. Thus, instead of asking for a settlement of, say, $3,500 for the download of one copyrighted video (as other copyright holders do), they’ll ask for a settlement of ALL 50 MOVIES they claim you downloaded over the last three (3) years. This article will go into the various pitfalls a defendant may face when being lured into a Strike 3 Holdings anonymous settlement.
NOTE: BEFORE READING THIS ARTICLE: If you have not already done so, and you are implicated as a John Doe in a Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit, read these first:
Strike 3 Holdings’s list of “movies infringed” is often INCOMPLETE (and for a reason).
If you choose to fight and defend the claims against you, they have ‘slick tricks’ built into their lawsuits. They file their lawsuit alleging copyright infringement of only one (1) video, and they list (for example,) the fifty (50) videos they claim you downloaded over the years. However, they hold back information from the court and they do not list the newest Vixen / Tushy / Blacked / Deeper. videos you have downloaded in the recent months. Thus, if the lawsuit was filed in March, 2023 they’ll only list downloads you participated in until December, 2022. This leaves all of the Strike 3 Holdings downloads you participated in between January 2023 – March 2023 off of the lawsuit.
Why would they do this? Because they know that when you start fighting your case, you might dispute a number of their claims. You might even go line-by-line and claim that they did not follow the copyright laws in protecting their rights (e.g., Strike 3 Holdings has consistently fudged the ‘publication’ requirement, as I have fought with them on this topic in the past). However, whether you are right or wrong, they always keep “extra ammunition” of other Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (Vixen / Tushy / Blacked / Deeper.) titles you downloaded as a threat against you fighting them on the merits. For example, they might say “If you argue that this list is not accurate, we actually have many more titles we believe you have downloaded — we can list these too if you would like.”
Obviously it is more complicated than this, but point being, I have seen that Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits always keeps some set of information ‘off of the table,’ and they reserve this information to gain additional leverage when an inexperienced attorney tries to fight them on the line-by-line details of their case (which, by the way, is often flawed or contains copy-and-paste mistakes from other lawsuits).
Strike 3 Holdings anticipated anonymous settlements and built in a way to re-sue defendants who settled.
Now as far as an anonymous settlement, Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits are ‘slick’ here too. Their lawsuits do not implicate you, a “John Doe” defendant, who has had many IP addresses over the past few years. Rather, they implicate only “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 172.2.51.244,” a John Doe defendant who has been assigned a specific IP address on one day.
(And if your lawsuit is “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe”), then look at the COMPLAINT ITSELF AND THEIR “EXHIBIT A” to see if you are implicated as downloading one title or multiple titles.)
IP addresses are assigned to internet users when their router connects their computer to the internet. That IP address does not belong to that internet user; rather, it is “leased” to that internet user for a limited time, usually 24 hours, 48 hours, or until they reboot their modem or otherwise obtain a new IP address. Thus, the IP address you have today might not be the same IP address you had yesterday, and so on. Now IP addresses are pulled from a limited pool of addresses, so a particular internet service provider (“ISP”) might assign the same IP address to a customer for a few days in a row, but that IP address does not belong to that internet user. If it did, it would be called a “static IP address” which is significantly more expensive than the residential “dynamic IP addresses” leased to residential ISP customers.
Why is this relevant to you, the person behind the John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 172.2.51.244 title? Because IF you settled anonymously, you would be settling as John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 172.2.51.244, and not as the John Doe Defendant having had many IP addresses leased to him. Thus, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC could easily take your $12,000 settlement payment, say thank you, and then sue you again under a different “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address [SOMETHING ELSE]” for this same set of movies allegedly downloaded. If you settled anonymously, your attorney would have ‘unwittingly’ opened you up to this problem, because John Doe subscriber assigned IP address X is a different fictitious legal entity than John Doe subscriber assigned IP address Y. This sounds like semantics, but buyer beware.
In sum, beware of the settlement factory attorney who tries to convince you to settle the claims against you “anonymously.”
Further, Strike 3 Holdings anonymous settlements give the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys an opportunity to price gouge their settlement prices. Why? Because an attorney who comes to them asking them to settle anonymously (without disclosing to Strike 3 Holdings the identity of the defendant) prompts the Strike 3 Holdings attorney to inquire why that defendant wants to settle anonymously. “What does he have to hide?,” they ask. Immediately upon learning that the accused defendant wants to settle anonymously, they recognize that the defense attorney has lost all leverage in negotiating the settlement price, and they’ll “spike” the cost of the settlement. “Anonymous settlements come at a price,” they may say.
pedrofigueras / Pixabay
Attorneys Advocating “Anonymous Settlements” are Deceiving You.
Thus, it is important to understand the mechanics of a settlement before jumping to ask for an anonymous settlement. What most accused Strike 3 Holdings defendants do not realize is that the settlements ARE ALREADY ANONYMOUS [with minimal tweaking] without the defendant having to ask for it. A diligent attorney will negotiate a confidentiality clause into the settlement agreement (or strengthen one that is already in their boilerplate settlement agreement) to prevent their attorneys from disclosing the identity of the defendant with anyone. This means that your attorney can (and should) put your name in the settlement agreement itself. This avoids the entire John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address [SOMETHING] issue, because it is actually the real person (not the fictitious John Doe legal entity having a particular IP address) who is settling.
Rather than taking the effort to actually negotiate the terms of the agreement, your settlement factory attorney will try to convince you that you won’t suffer if you try to settle anonymously. This not only alleviates them of the need to negotiate the terms of the agreement, but it also allows them to use their “turn key” boilerplate e-mails, which the plaintiff attorneys (who have already agreed to a pre-arranged inflated settlement price) already know and recognize, so that they can ‘spike’ the settlement amount, gouge the settling defendant, and charge higher prices. I won’t go into the dishonest attorney issue, kickbacks, etc., as I have written about these issues before.
Once an accused Strike 3 Holdings defendant realizes that it is okay to allow his attorney to put his name in the settlement agreement, at that point, the Strike 3 Holdings settlement agreement itself covers 1) ALL PAST ACTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT regarding 2) ALL OF STRIKE 3 HOLDING’S TITLES, and based on the wording of the CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE in the agreement the settlement truly becomes a “Strike 3 Holdings anonymous settlement.” Let’s look into this one level deeper, just to be sure that we have also solved the other ‘slick tricks’ Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits have built into their cases.
1) “ALL PAST ACTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT”
Because the settlement agreement containing the name of the accused defendant (and not the so-called ‘anonymous’ fictitious John Doe entity), the settlement will cover “ALL PAST ACTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.” This means that the settlement will cover even those downloads that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC purposefully “left out” from the list of infringements filed with the lawsuit. Further, the Strike 3 Holdings settlement agreement WILL EVEN THOSE DOWNLOADS MADE BY A “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address” HAVING AN IP ADDRESS WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address” IMPLICATED AS THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE. In other words, by negotiating the terms of a Strike 3 Holdings settlement, but having the confidentiality clause protect the client’s identity, the settlement agreement having the client’s real name on it will not only be a true Strike 3 Holdings anonymous settlement, but it will also cover any other fictitious “John Doe” entity that could have downloaded any of Strike 3 Holdings movies, ever.
2) “ALL OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS’ TITLES”
Strike 3 Holdings settlement agreements used to be very specific as to which specific Strike 3 Holdings titles were being settled, and the settlement used to cover ONLY THOSE TITLES and no other titles allegedly downloaded. This was back when the Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-1000 cases were still being filed. Immediately we recognized that this limitation of the scope of the agreement to ONLY THOSE KNOWN TITLES DOWNLOADED exposed the client to multiple lawsuits for 1) Strike 3 Holdings movie titles that Strike 3 Holdings ‘slickly’ left out of their list, or 2) Strike 3 Holdings titles which their investigators missed. Thus today, when we negotiate a Strike 3 Holdings settlement, the settlement necessarily includes ALL PAST ACTS of copyright infringement FOR ALL OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS’ MOVIES.
In sum, when dealing with a copyright troll such as Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, and you see that they do something innocuous such as changing the lawsuit names from “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe” to “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 214.42.955.8,” realize that THEY HAVE DONE THIS FOR A REASON.
What else can you tell me about the Strike 3 Holdings cases?
[2023 UPDATE] The best way to learn about Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is to read what happened to them as it happened. The list of stories below (in the order I listed them) tell the Strike 3 Holdings story in a way that you will understand them.
— FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC: Again, if you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit, there are TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:
CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
Why I love the IGNORE route for our innocent clients.
I wanted to take a moment to share a revelation I had regarding the IGNORE route — a strategy we often discuss with clients who did not do the download and do not wish to settle.
NOTE: The word “ignore” is actually a misnomer, as we do anything but ignore. Traditionally, there are three options an accused John Doe Defendant accused of downloading a movie has:
1 — “fight” or “litigate” the case on the merits; 2 — settle the claims by negotiating a settlement payment; 3 — resolve the claims WITHOUT paying a settlement payment.
IGNORE ROUTE REPRESENTATION is a legal alternative to not hiring an attorney at all — just “ignoring” the case and hoping for the best. Hiring an attorney in the “ignore” route will allow him to navigate your John Doe entity through the lawsuit and its pitfalls… to its eventual dismissal.
The stated goal in the IGNORE route is NOT to pay a settlement.
IGNORE route allows us to shoulder the burdens of no-settlement representation.
IGNORE route representation simply employs the strategy of hiring an attorney for the purpose of having that attorney shoulder the burdens a John Doe defendant would experience when analyzing and managing the risks involved in defending against a “copyright troll” copyright infringement case.
We simply have been here many times before with many past copyright holders and their attorneys, so we have seen how various plaintiff attorneys react to what are common scenarios or “story lines” that occur in these cases, and how judges act to move the case forward.
I don’t know how to say this more clearly — we have seen many tactics and strategies arise, succeed, and fail over the years, and this has provided us an arsenal of tools that we can use when defending the interests of each client.
What are the FACTORS involved in analyzing a case for our client?
Involved in the analysis of representing a client in IGNORE route representation are:
1) reviewing or being aware of OTHER CASES in THAT specific FEDERAL COURT,
2) understanding the PAST RULINGS AND PROCLIVITIES of THAT FEDERAL JUDGE,
3) understanding the proclivities, talents, and skills of THAT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY who sued on behalf of a particular copyright holder, and
4) making educated decisions based on OUR OWN PAST EXPERIENCES of each of the above to properly decide how to proceed at each stage of the lawsuit.
IGNORE route deprives the copyright holder of the settlement they wish to extort.
Personally, the “ignore” route has always been one of my favorite strategies because not only does it deprive the plaintiff attorney and his client of a settlement when a settlement is not warranted, but it empowers my client to understand what is happening throughout the lawsuit so that they could see the case as I see it with my own eyes — based on my understanding of the circumstances and factors influencing the outcome of the case.
My favorite part about the IGNORE route representation strategy is that it gives my clients an authoritative way to say “NO!” to what would otherwise be a settlement extortion scheme.
Why the IGNORE route works.
IGNORE route representation is a well crafted strategy which analyzes and predicts deadlines, and it has correctly predicted the trends with very few surprises or accidental occurrences (e.g., without clients getting named and served or suffering some other complication due to attorney inexperience or inattention), and it accomplishes this goal simply because I take the time to do my research and watch the cases.
I hate to say this, but too many attorneys fail their clients simply because they do not do their homework. They do not research their case, and they approach the lawsuit without understanding how a bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuit is litigated. They approach the opposing counsel blindly without understanding who they are (with no knowledge of their past activities, proclivities, or personalities), and they approach the case itself thinking it is merely “just another copyright case” without understanding the motivations of the copyright holder or the nuances of how bittorrent-based “copyright troll” cases differ from traditional “copyright infringement” cases. In the end, their ego and their unpreparedness only hurts their client. And if they file a pro hac appearance with the court and they enter the court without researching what rulings have been made in the past in THAT district, or without knowing the personality of THAT judge presiding over the case, I have nothing to say except that they caused the results they achieved for their client.
There are also a number of settlement factories and copycat attorneys who claim to do everything that we do, but cheaper. These are often settlement factories who load their websites with advertising trash and repetitive articles designed to overwhelm you so that you end up calling one of their call centers. I hate to say this — while there will be many attorneys who offer the “ignore” route after reading this article, be aware that the ignore route is not merely keeping an open line of communication with the plaintiff attorney — it is doing what attorneys call “due diligence” in analyzing a case and coming up with conclusions and strategies that are very particular to each client’s PERSONAL NEEDS, the FACTS as to what actually happened, the client’s FINANCIAL ABILITIES and social pressures, AND all of the FACTORS I mentioned above (e.g., analyzing THAT plaintiff attorney, THAT copyright holder, THAT judge, THAT court, THAT federal court’s rulings, and the physical TIMING and ENVIRONMENT surrounding THAT particular case on THAT day or moment). You really can’t copy that, and “THAT” is exactly what you pay for with our law firm.
This method of representing clients is one of the “products” I have been proud to offer clients for the last SEVEN (7) YEARS as an alternative to the options they are often provided by other attorneys — who either push them to settle the claims against them, or leave them helpless to deal with the matter on their own — and I am happy to shoulder the burden and to be their eyes and ears of the case, protecting them with privileges an attorney is granted by the law. There is so much more to say here, but I believe I have more than made my point.
CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
Any “copyright troll” bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuit really revolves around the subpoena which moves from the court to the accused John Doe Defendants. Tracking a subpoena can help an accused defendant understand the timelines of when they can fight, when they can settle, when they can ignore, and whether they are anonymous or not at each step.
A Subpoena is first introduced to the court for approval.
A subpoena is first introduced to the court when the plaintiff attorney files the lawsuit and asks the court for permission to obtain the identities of the various internet users accused of downloading the copyright holder’s movie or copyrighted work.
The Subpoena, once approved by the court, is sent to the ISP.
The federal judge approves the subpoena (usually by rubber stamp), and the subpoenas are then sent to the “abuse” department of the various ISPs (e.g., AT&T U-verse, COX Communications, Comcast, etc.). These ISPs in receipt of the subpoena are ordered to hand over the accused subscriber’s information to the plaintiff attorney. They send a notice to the account holder that a subpoena has been received, and that they are under a duty to comply with the subpoena by a certain date unless the account holder files a Motion to Quash the subpoena before the arbitrary deadline they set (usually the deadline is 30 days from the notice sent to the subscriber).
The ISP forwards the Subpoena to the accused account holder giving him a chance to file an objection with the court.
You (the account holder) receive the notice containing the subpoena, and you learn that you are implicated as a “John Doe” (an unnamed defendant) in the Copyright Holder Corporate Entity v. Does lawsuit. Here, you learn that you can supposedly stop the ISP from handing out your information to the plaintiff attorney by filing an objection with the court, a.k.a. a “Motion to Quash.” At this point, you are still anonymous.
The ISP complies with the Subpoena and hands over your contact information to the plaintiff attorney.
Assuming you do not file the Motion to Quash (there are many articles on this website explaining why you might not do so), the 30-day deadline set by your ISP will lapse, and your ISP will comply with the subpoena. They turn over your information to the PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (but not to the court or anyone else). You are still anonymous.
At this point, the life of the subpoena is over, as it has served its purpose and the plaintiff attorney is in receipt of your contact information (and whatever other information your ISP was forced to hand over to it). At this point, you are a “John Doe” defendant in the lawsuit, and only your plaintiff attorney knows your real identity. YOU ARE STILL ANONYMOUS at this point (as to the court and the world, as the plaintiff attorney is not going to share your information unless he decides to name and serve you as a defendant in the lawsuit).
Your anonymity expires once the plaintiff attorney realizes that he or she cannot get a settlement from you, and based on their evidence that you are the downloader of their client’s copyrighted movie, they file an amended complaint with the court with your name as a defendant, and they serve you with a copy of the complaint. At this point, you have been “named and served,” and you are no longer anonymous. At this point, you need to decide whether it makes more sense to stand and defend against the claims against you (consider the attorney fees issue), or to negotiate a settlement and amicably step away from the lawsuit.
NOTE: If you choose to fight, be aware of Prof. Matthew Sag’s paper entitled “Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling,” and the considerations surrounding using what are otherwise “valid” defenses to copyright infringement which likely DO apply to your case.
