Why filing a Motion To Quash an ISP Subpoena will fail.

motion-to-quash

A Motion to Quash might not be the proper response to a subpoena seeking to disclose your identity.

ISPs send you a notice saying that unless you file a motion to quash a subpoena, on a certain date they are obligated to hand over your contact information (your identity) to the plaintiff attorney. Their ISP subpoena notification letter suggests that YOU MUST file a motion to quash or object to the court, or else. In practice, filing a motion to quash might just get you in trouble. (Click to Tweet!)

Now, TEN YEARS LATER (September, 2020), the ISPs STILL SEND THE SAME ISP NOTIFICATION LETTER. Accused John Doe Defendants still read that letter and think, “Oh shoot! I need to hire an attorney to file a motion to quash!”

The original article started here:

“I have been closely monitoring the procedural side of a number of these copyright violation cases where thousands of internet users have been accused of illegally downloading various movies using the bittorrent protocol.”  

Motion to Quash – “IN THEORY”

Upon receipt of a notice that an ISP has been provided a subpoena forcing it to reveal the identity of a subscriber accused of downloading a copyrighted film, a motion to quash (a.k.a., an “objection to the court”) to stop the ISP from handing out the subscriber’s identity appears to be the suggested next step.  

Motion to Quash – “IN PRACTICE”

But IN PRACTICE, filing a motion to quash has not achieved the result we would like it to.  Plaintiff attorneys are claiming that the accused John Doe Defendant does not have “standing” to file the motion to quash because they are not yet a defendant in the case.

In 2010, there was a scam going on in mass-bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases.  Of the hundreds of defendants, NOBODY was named and served.

A number of these internet users have hired the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC to represent them through the “negotiation and settlement phase” of the lawsuit. [I put this phase in quotes because in truth what has been happening is that the plaintiff attorneys and the underlying media companies have performed what I consider a “slight of hand” with the legal system by naming each of these defendants in the lawsuit by their IP address or by being one of 1-5000 John Does.]

For the most part, as of today (this was November, 2010), the plaintiffs have not named any defendants in these cases. Instead, they have issued subpoenas to the internet service providers (the ISPs) forcing them to hand over their subscribers’ information. The plaintiffs claim this is so they can do “discovery.”

What is actually happening is that outside of the legal system, regardless of whether it is the Hurt Locker lawsuit, the Far Cry lawsuit, or any of the other smaller lawsuits, the plaintiff attorneys have been harassing the accused ISP subscribers and taunting them using scare tactics to persuade them to pay thousands of dollars each to make them go away. In my opinion, this is an abuse of the legal process, and I would like to see an attorney general order this activity stopped. Nevertheless, this is what is happening.

*2020 UPDATE*: This was a great article about motions to quash, but back when I wrote this article in 2010, copyright troll attorneys filed what were known as “mass bittorrent” copyright infringement lawsuits. Back then, it was common to have 5,000 John Doe Defendants clumped together in one lawsuit. TODAY, HOWEVER, copyright infringement cases usually only have ONE DEFENDANT — one “John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address 123.555.555.555” (or whatever the accused IP is).

However, even today (9/1/2020), ISPs still use the same ISP Subpoena Notification Letters that they did ten years earlier (in 2010). These ISP Subpoena Notification Letters still suggest that what the accused defendant needs to do is FILE A MOTION TO QUASH.

This actually happened: In 2010, a defense attorney sold “motion to quash” online forms for a few dollars a copy. Someone pirated the form, everyone used it, and the plaintiff attorney asked the court to sanction the defense attorney.

Because this happened in the context of this case, I kept this horribly terrible-but-funny piece of history in this article (I felt terrible for the attorney this happened to).

[Click here to read about this story in more depth.]

In 2010, a group of us attorneys were trying to figure out how to deal with the mass-bittorrent-copyright-infringement lawsuits, and specifically what to do about the ISP Subpoena Notification Letters where the accused defendants were led to believe that they should file a motion to quash as their next legal step to preserve the anonymity of their identity.

My approach was to realize that the motion to quash was a bad idea.

Another attorney’s approach [bless his heart, even today he has my utmost respect] decided to make a few bucks per defendant. He decided to sell “motion to quash” packages containing online forms to download and use (e.g., $10 per download). These “motion to quash” forms made it easy to file a motion to quash, and the attorney made a few bucks along the way, or else that was the plan.

…I will never forget the uncontrollable laughter an attorney next to me experienced when he realized that this defense attorney’s “motion to quash” package was pirated and UPLOADED TO THE BITTORRENT NETWORK. “What did you expect them to do?” he asked me.

As a result, many accused downloaders used this form to file motions to quash in this case (the one the article was written about). The plaintiff attorneys got mad at all of the extra paperwork this caused [because there were thousands of defendants], and they asked the court to sanction the defense attorney who sold the online “motion to quash” forms.

Why I do not recommend motions to quash.

Returning to the “motion to quash” topic, since then, a number of people have asked me why I do not advise a “march into court and file a motion to quash” approach.

Simply, so far, attorneys and individuals who filed motions to quash have not been successful. Just two days ago (2010), the plaintiff attorneys in the Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-5,000 case filed a motion asking the court to sanction an attorney who created forms which internet users purchased, copied-and-pasted, and filed with the court. [Now you know the story because I added it in, now 10 years later.]

While I just spent close to an hour e-mailing the attorney against whom sanctions were requested and suggesting ways as to how to properly defend himself against their accusations, the fact that the law firm maliciously went after this defense attorney trying to help people out of this situation is notable, but it is not useful to you, the reader.

motion-to-quash-isp-subpoena
blende12 / Pixabay

“NO STANDING” ARGUMENT: Filing a motion to quash is inapplicable to a defendant before he is named and served.

[2020 UPDATE: Unfortunately, it was this same case which gave birth to the “no standing to file a motion to quash” response that became a common plaintiff attorney response when someone files a motion to quash.]

What is telling is that in their motion (Case 1:10-cv-00873-RMU, Document 19, filed 11/22/2010, pages 4-6), the plaintiffs stated that a motion to quash, motions to dismiss, and motions for protective orders ARE COMPLETELY INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE DEFENDANTS ARE NOT YET NAMED OR SUED AS DEFENDANTS IN THE LAWSUIT. The plaintiffs continue (on page 5) and say, “The subpoenas are issued to the ISPs, and the Doe Defendants do not have to do anything in responding to the subpoenas [because they have not yet been named in the lawsuit].” (Emphasis added.)

2020 UPDATE: This document ended up causing the standard “no standing” response to all motions to quash filed after 2010. After this lawsuit, plaintiff attorneys responded to motions to quash by stating, “So-and-so just filed a motion to quash. However, I do not know who so-and-so is. I sued “John Does 1-5000”; so-and-so is not a defendant in this lawsuit.

“THUS, HE IS NOT A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, AND THUS HE HAS NO RIGHT TO FILE A MOTION TO QUASH YET. *IF AND WHEN* we name and serve him, if he does not live in the state, he can object to the personal jurisdiction of the court in his answer.”

…Thus the “no standing” objection to motions to quash were born, and thus died the filing a motion to quash.

My Opinion: There should be some motion or filing available to accused defendants, but a motion to quash has not yet been an effective answer.

I must point out that I disagree with the plaintiffs here because in my understanding, being named in a lawsuit (regardless of whether the defendant is named as an IP address or as a Doe Defendant) causes undue harm to the defendant even prior to being named as a defendant.

The reason I say this is that each John Doe Defendant is sent a threatening letter from their ISPs accusing them of illegal activity. Each Doe is “put on notice” that he or she has been named in a lawsuit and thus anticipates being sued. Each Doe Defendant is advised to retain an attorney and is told that he or she can be criminally and/or civilly liable for violation of the federal copyright laws.

Each Doe Defendant is then ACTIVELY solicited and threatened by the attorney plaintiffs to “pay up or face a real lawsuit” where a judgment can cost a family their home, all their savings, their freedom, and possibly force them into bankruptcy. In my opinion, to say that an unnamed John Doe Defendant at this point has no right to file such a motion because he does not yet have “standing,” and that such a motion is not yet applicable until the defendant is actually named in the lawsuit is simply irresponsible lawyering.

But so far, I have not seen the motions to quash be an effective tool against the media companies looking to enforce their copyrights. I have not seen the judges letting defendants off the hook for simply sending in letters and/or form responses asserting what in my opinion are proper jurisdictional arguments.

[2020 UPDATE: We are now 10 years later from the date I wrote this letter, and motions to quash are still the same, plagued with the same issues (and yielding the same response from the plaintiff attorneys) and the same outcomes. Cases have evolved and copyright trolls started suing defendants in the state in which they lived (making motions to quash useless because they claim the plaintiff sued them in the wrong state), but the “no standing” problem is still there, even today.

Similarly, the ISP subpoena notification letters still make the ISP subscribers think that they need to immediately file a motion to quash to preserve their anonymity. I am happy to share that after all of the articles I wrote over the years on motions to quash, now people are educated on the topic. Nevertheless, the initial gut reaction when someone is sued as a John Doe is STILL to file a motion to quash.

…still, ten years later! [Please click here to Tweet!]


[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about an ISP Subpoena Notification Letter you received, you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your notice, or you can call/SMS us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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.

    Kerry Culpepper vs. YTS | 1337x.to | and now bittorrent users.

    Image containing Cook Productions Mr. Church Movie

    I just wanted to take a moment to note that I have been reading about what has been going on with Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP. He has been leading a campaign to sue uploaders, site owners, and now internet users who have used either the YTS or 1337x.to torrent website.

    For the moment, he seems to be merely sending DMCA settlement demand notices, but I wonder whether these accused internet users will find themselves on the receiving end of a copyright infringement lawsuit.

    *9/16/2020 UPDATE*Joshua Lee of Culpepper IP (a first year associate under Kerry Culpepper’s direction) has begun to send out settlement demand e-mails to accused internet users who signed up to the YTS piracy website using their real information.

    You can read about it here: The truth about why Culpepper IP is sending settlement demand letters VIA E-MAIL to YTS users.

    …more to come.

    NOTE: For the moment, a good article to explain what is happening can be found here: The evolution of privacy as it applies to hardware devices such as Kodi.

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS – LIST OF CASES BY STATE (AUGUST 2020)

    strike-3-holdings-connection-between-miami-dade-county-and-federal-court-cases

    Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed roughly 120 copyright infringement lawsuits in federal courts (US District Courts) across the US since my last article last month (this time last year, they were filing on average 100+ cases each month). They appear to have focused their lawsuits on the US District Courts in the states of California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. As often as it is useful, I will be listing the Strike Holdings cases which are filed in each state.

    Most of these defendants were ALREADY sued… in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

    What is interesting and noteworthy is that many (if not all) of the John Doe Defendants sued in each of these cases were once defendants in their Strike 3 Miami-Dade County, Florida Bill of Discovery cases.

    The connection between Miami-Dade County, Florida and the US District Court (Federal Courts).

    The purpose of the Miami-Dade County, Florida Bill of Discovery cases were to reveal the identities of the accused defendants across the US… so that Strike 3 can determine whether they will name and serve these defendants in their home state’s federal courts.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    In other words, they ALREADY KNOW the identities of each of the accused account holders.

    What we see here in each of the new filings in the federal courts — they are suing them again as JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS. Did I emphasize that? AGAIN! These new defendants are not sued as “Maude Parker, Sam Finnen, orJake Green” (I made these names up, sorry if you were actually one of the defendants), but STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS V. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

    In other words, they told each of the federal court judges that:

    “I don’t know who this person is, so I am suing them as a “John Doe placeholder-in-lieu-of-name” defendant. “Please judge, let me send a subpoena to their ISP to force the ISP to share the accused unknown defendant’s identity with me.”

    In practice, Strike 3 Holdings LLC is now sending a second subpoena to each defendant because each of these defendants have already received their first subpoena when they were accused John Doe defendants in the Florida Miami-Dade County, Florida Bill of Discovery case.

    So… round two.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    MIAMI DADE COUNTY COURT LIST OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS CASES:

    I am pasting a list of the current Miami-Dade, Florida Bill of Discovery cases, including both the Local Case Number and the State Case Number (this is really so that you can find this article, so this information *is* useful to you). The name of each case is the same:

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1

    Local Case Numbers (open cases): 2020-016660-CC-05, 2020-016669-CC-05, 2020-016577-CC-05, 2020-014518-CC-05, 2020-014520-CC-05, 2020-014481-CC-05, 2020-012478-CC-05, 2020-011743-CC-05, 2020-011744-CC-05, 2020-011499-CC-05, 2020-009492-CC-05, 2020-009491-CC-05, 2020-009493-CC-05, 2020-005388-CC-05, 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05.

    State Case Numbers (open cases): 132019CC024647000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC002021000005, 132020CC002019000005, 132020CC002968000005, 132020CC003737000005, 132020CC003891000005, 132020CC003890000005, 132020CC005388000005, 132020CC006500000005, 132020CC009493000005, 132020CC009491000005, 132020CC009492000005, 132020CC011499000005, 132020CC011744000005, 132020CC011743000005, 132020CC012478000005, 132020CC014481000005, 132020CC014520000005, 132020CC014518000005, 132020CC016577000005, 132020CC016669000005, 132020CC016660000005

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    For those of you now involved in one of the federal court copyright infringement cases, interestingly enough, your Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 Bill of Discovery case might already be closed.

    Here are the list of closed cases:

    Local Case Numbers (CLOSED cases): 2020-006499-CC-05, 2020-006503-CC-05, 2020-005727-CC-05, 2020-003059-CC-05, 2020-003063-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, 2019-028410-CC-05, 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05.

    State Case Numbers (CLOSED cases): 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC028410000005, 132019CC028412000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132020CC002024000005, 132020CC003063000005, 132020CC003059000005, 132020CC005727000005, 132020CC006503000005, 132020CC006499000005.

    Interesting that you were once part of one of these cases, but now you are involved in the federal court cases that I will now speak about below. Let’s backtrack a bit.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    The Connection between the New Strike 3 Holdings, LLC Federal Court Case Filings, and the Miami-Dade County, Florida Bill of Discovery Filings.

    Today is 8/18/2020, and I am writing this article to allow you to demonstrate a point to yourself — that each of you who are now involved in a federal court case were once a Miami-Dade, Florida Bill of Discovery accused defendant.

    Again, pasted (below) is a list of Miami-Dade Strike 3 lawsuits which are still open:

    Local Case Numbers (open cases): 2020-016660-CC-05, 2020-016669-CC-05, 2020-016577-CC-05, 2020-014518-CC-05, 2020-014520-CC-05, 2020-014481-CC-05, 2020-012478-CC-05, 2020-011743-CC-05, 2020-011744-CC-05, 2020-011499-CC-05, 2020-009492-CC-05, 2020-009491-CC-05, 2020-009493-CC-05, 2020-005388-CC-05, 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05.

    Other “Strike 3 Holdings by month” articles that I have written thus far are for the MARCH 2019, APRIL 2019, JANUARY 2020, and more recently, the JULY 2020 cases. My goal in this article is to make note of the connection between the older Miami-Dade Florida Bill of Discovery cases, and the more recent Strike 3 Holdings, LLC federal court cases.

    What Strike 3 Holdings, LLC did with the Miami-Dade County, Florida Court.

    In the Miami-Dade County Court, Strike 3 Holdings devised a way to unmask the identities of THOUSANDS of defendants without needing to sue each defendant in Federal Court. They did this by exploiting the Florida “Pure Bill of Discovery” laws, and thus far, the Miami-Dade, Florida judges are allowing them to continue this scheme.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    If you are involved in a Miami-Dade Florida state-based lawsuit, there is much that you will need to understand, as these cases differ from the copyright infringement lawsuits which are filed in federal courts.

    • INITIAL ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW STRIKE 3 IS USING THE STATE COURTS TO UNMASK DEFENDANTS’ IDENTITIES.
    • FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE EXPOSING THE “BOSSES” BEHIND THE SCHEME
    • RECENT ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE LURING DEFENDANTS IN WITH A “BAIT AND SWITCH” — OFFERING TO FILE A MOTION TO QUASH KNOWING IT WILL END UP FORCING THEIR CLIENTS TO SETTLE OR BE SUED.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    WHERE TO LEARN ABOUT THE STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES?

    For those of you looking for an initial understanding of the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC copyright holder, you can click here to read the “JUST THE FACTS – STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC” article I wrote about them.

    For those of you looking to delve deeper into who is Strike 3 Holdings LLC and what are they looking for, you can click here to read the “EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ONE PAGE ABOUT YOUR STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC” article I wrote afterwards.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    RECENT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC FEDERAL COURT FILINGS:

    …Now onto the federal court filings in each state.

    CALIFORNIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

    Strike 3 Holdings California Central District Court

    Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 107.184.92.94 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07421)
    v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 172.89.57.72 (Case No. 8:20-cv-01520)
    v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 104.173.206.190 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07416)
    v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.174.118.71 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06262
    v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.164.4 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06261)
    v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.87.197.120 (Case No. 5:20-cv-01393)
    v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.250.76.115 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06260)
    v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 137.25.32.101 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06808)
    v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.185.19.186 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06807)

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    Strike 3 Holdings California Northern District Court

    Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.103.236.62 (Case No. 3:20-cv-04710)
    v. John Doe infringer* identified as using IP address 174.62.95.35 (Case No. 3:20-cv-04709)
    v. John Doe infringer* identified as using IP address 174.62.95.35 (Case No. 4:20-cv-04709)
    v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.169.103.145 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05221)
    v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.150.134.57 (Case No. 3:20-cv-05220)
    v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.150.134.57 (Case No. 4:20-cv-05220)
    v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.169.103.145 (Case No. 4:20-cv-05221)
    v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.176.167.14 (Case No. 3:20-cv-01325)

    *[NOTE TO SELF: “Is there a difference between a “John Doe Subscriber” and a “John Doe infringer? No, but the title of being accused as “John Doe infringer” is funny, and here is why.]

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    Strike 3 Holdings California Southern District Court

    Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.176.167.14 (Case No. 3:20-cv-01325)

    …Interestingly, not much going on in the California Southern District Court.

    CONNECTICUT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

    Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut District Court

    Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:20-cv-01157, 3:20-cv-00961, and 3:20-cv-00960)

    …These are newer cases, and the judge has not yet been assigned for these. I’m guessing Jackie James will be the plaintiff attorney in each of these.

    MARYLAND STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

    Strike 3 Holdings Maryland District Court

    Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe* (Case Nos. 8:20-cv-02298, 8:20-cv-02299, 8:20-cv-02300, 1:20-cv-02276, 1:20-cv-02271, Case No. 1:20-cv-02278, 1:20-cv-02277, 1:20-cv-02279, 1:20-cv-02285, 1:20-cv-02286, 1:20-cv-02284, 1:20-cv-02283, 1:20-cv-02280, 8:20-cv-02287, 8:20-cv-02289, 8:20-cv-02290, 8:20-cv-02291, 8:20-cv-02288, 8:20-cv-02293, 8:20-cv-02292, 8:20-cv-02295, 8:20-cv-02294, 8:20-cv-02296, 8:20-cv-02297, 8:20-cv-02298, 8:20-cv-02299, and 8:20-cv-02300)

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    *NOTES TO SELF: It is important to note that Strike 3 Holdings appears to be putting A LOT of money and resources into filing lawsuits in Maryland.

    …The logic is that each of these defendants has money to pay a large settlement to them, or else they wouldn’t file the lawsuit against them.

    Also interesting is that EVERY ONE of these Maryland cases were filed on ONE DAY — AUGUST 6TH, 2020.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    NEW JERSEY STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

    Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey District Court

    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.109.249 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10179)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.245.115.134 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10177)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.15.186 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10180)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.228.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10185)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.126.57 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10184)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.114.252 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10183)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.202.59 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10173)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.127.245 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10174)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.157.64 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10181)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.82.226.89 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10178)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.71.239 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10175)

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.27.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10182)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.109.249 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10179)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.245.115.134 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10177)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.228.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10185)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.15.186 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10180)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.127.245 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10174)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.114.252 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10183)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.202.59 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10173)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.157.64 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10181)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.82.226.89 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10178)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.71.239 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10175)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.126.57 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10184)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.27.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10182)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.242.30.49 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10208)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.102.99.44 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10206)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.102.216.227 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10205)

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.217.57 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10207)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.129.28 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10201)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.44.2 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10198)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.166.25 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10202)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.66.59 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10199)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.41.90 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10223)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.185.130 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10222)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.108.155 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10217)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.35.204.190 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10224)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.127.201.146 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10228)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.39.170 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10226)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.78.195 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10225)
    …v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.201.138 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10229)

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    *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.

    2) The plaintiff attorney for each of these New Jersey cases is John Atkin of the Atkin Firm, LLC. There is a history WHY John Atkin is important to New Jersey, and that history is uncovered by understanding WHAT HAPPENED with the shake-up of attorneys last year.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    NEW YORK STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

    New York Eastern District Court

    Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 2:20-cv-03660, 2:20-cv-03654, 2:20-cv-03657, 2:20-cv-03653, 2:20-cv-03646, 2:20-cv-03659, 2:20-cv-03655, 2:20-cv-03648, 2:20-cv-03649, 2:20-cv-03658, 2:20-cv-03647, 2:20-cv-03651, 2:20-cv-03650, 2:20-cv-03656, and 2:20-cv-03399.)

    New York Southern District Court

    Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-06030, and 1:20-cv-05425.)

    New York Western District Court

    Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-01081, 1:20-cv-01079, 1:20-cv-01084, 1:20-cv-01083, 1:20-cv-01082, 1:20-cv-01085, 1:20-cv-01080, and 6:20-cv-06505.)

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    PENNSYLVANIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

    Pennsylvania Middle District Court*

    Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.55.82.15 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01322)
    …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.130.61.38 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01324)
    …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.58.204.183 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01323)

    [*NOTE TO SELF: It is interesting that they are filing against defendants in the Pennsylvania MIDDLE District Court, and *NOT* in the Pennsylvania EASTERN District Court (where 99% of copyright troll litigation over the years happens there). I do not have a reason why this is the case.]

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    VIRGINIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

    Virginia Eastern District Court

    Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-00825, 1:20-cv-00823, and 1:20-cv-00824.)

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    IN SUMMARY

    So as you can see, unlike when we weren’t sure whether the Miami-Dade Florida Strike 3 lawsuits would turn into copyright infringement cases filed in federal court, now we know.

    Strike 3 Miami-Dade County Case Numbers (of still open cases): 2020-016660-CC-05, 2020-016669-CC-05, 2020-016577-CC-05, 2020-014518-CC-05, 2020-014520-CC-05, 2020-014481-CC-05, 2020-012478-CC-05, 2020-011743-CC-05, 2020-011744-CC-05, 2020-011499-CC-05, 2020-009492-CC-05, 2020-009491-CC-05, 2020-009493-CC-05, 2020-005388-CC-05, 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05.


    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Strike 3 Holdings LLC case, or you can SMS/Whatsapp us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

    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 LAWSUITS – JUST THE FACTS.

      strike-3-holdings-connection-between-miami-dade-county-and-federal-court-cases

      JUST WALK ME THROUGH THIS.

      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC actually sent me a frightening ISP subpoena letter. Can you advise me on how to best avert this colossal crisis before the deadline?

      WALKTHROUGH (JOHN DOE): I WAS CAUGHT DOWNLOADING ADULT FILMS. WHAT IS THE EASIEST WAY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISP SUBPOENA NOTIFICATION LETTER THAT I RECEIVED AND WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS ON HOW TO PROCEED?

      WALKTHROUGH (SERVED): I WAS JUST NAMED AND SERVED AS A DEFENDANT (RECEIVED A SUMMONS). WHAT DO I DO AND HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO RESPOND?

      WHO IS SUING:

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC

      WHAT ARE THEY SUING FOR:

      THE UNLAWFUL DOWNLOAD OVER TIME OR STREAMING OF ADULT MOVIE TITLES PRODUCED UNDER THE BLACKED, TUSHY, AND VIXEN BRANDS.

      WHAT DO THEY WANT:

      ONE SETTLEMENT FOR THE UNLAWFUL DOWNLOAD OR STREAMING OF THEIR COPYRIGHTED ADULT MOVIE TITLES PRODUCED UNDER THE BLACKED, TUSHY AND VIXEN BRANDS.

      HOW FAR ARE THEY WILLING TO GO?

      DEPENDS ON WHICH FEDERAL COURT THE CASE IS FILED IN.  DEPENDS ON THE PROCLIVITIES OF THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY / STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC’S LOCAL COUNSEL, AND WHETHER HE/SHE IS WILLING TO NAME AND SERVE EACH DEFENDANT, AND WHETHER HE/SHE IS WILLING OR ABLE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY.

      HOW ARE THEY SUING?

      THEY FILE A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT AGAINST ONE UNKNOWN “JOHN DOE” DEFENDANT WITH ONE ACCUSED IP ADDRESSES. TRACKING OF THE DEFENDANT OFTEN TOOK PLACE FOR MONTHS OR YEARS BEFORE THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED. JUDGE ALLOWS THEM TO SEND A SUBPOENA TO THE ACCUSED DEFENDANT’S ISP FORCING IT TO PROVIDE THEM THE ACCUSED “JOHN DOE” DEFENDANT’S CONTACT INFORMATION (AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION).

      * 2020 UPDATE: MIAMI-DADE FLORIDA STATE-BASED LAWSUITS BASED ON “PURE BILL OF DISCOVERY” AND NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC HAS DEVISED A WAY OF UNMASKING THE IDENTITY OF ACCUSED DOWNLOADERS *WITHOUT* NEEDING TO GO THROUGH A FEDERAL COURT SUBPOENA PROCESS.

      SEE THE 2019-2020 “MIAMI-DADE STRIKE 3 ARTICLES”:

      • INITIAL ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW THEY ARE USING THE STATE COURTS TO UNMASK DEFENDANTS’ IDENTITIES.
      • FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE EXPOSING THE ATTORNEYS BEHIND THE SCHEME
      • RECENT ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE LURING DEFENDANTS IN WITH A “BAIT AND SWITCH” WHICH ENDS UP FORCING THEM TO SETTLE OR BE SUED.

      STRATEGIES:

      1) HAVE AN ATTORNEY DEFEND THE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION (RESULT: ATTORNEY FEES, NOT REFUNDABLE; EVENTUAL DISMISSAL).

      2) HAVE AN ATTORNEY NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT COVERING ALL PAST CLAIMS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT FOR THE MOVIE TITLES PROUCED BY BLACKED, TUSHY, AND VIXEN.

      SETTLEMENT WILL BE BASED ON THE PROFILE OF THE DOWNLOADER (DEMOGRAPHIC, INCOME, AND SOCIAL NETWORK INFORMATION).  AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT OTHER DOWNLOADS HE HAS DOWNLOADED, AND WHAT OTHER MOVIES HE HAS SEEN (AND WHETHER THOSE MOVIES ARE CLIENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY).

      ABILITY TO PAY AND WHETHER THE DOWNLOAD ACTUALLY HAPPENED (OR WHETHER THE MOVIE WAS ACTUALLY STREAMED) IS A RELEVANT FACTOR IN CONSIDERING THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT.

      3) HAVE AN ATTORNEY ACT AS A BUFFER BETWEEN YOURSELF AND THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY.  THIS IS OFTEN CALLED THE “IGNORE” ROUTE BECAUSE NEGOTIATING A SETTLEMENT IS * NOT * THE INTENDED OUTCOME.

      FOR A DEFENDANT WHO DID NOT DOWNLOAD OR STREAM THE MOVIE: THE GOAL OF THE “IGNORE” ROUTE IS TO KEEP AN OPEN LINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY TO CONVINCE HIM/HER THAT THE ACCUSED JOHN DOE DEFENDANT IS NOT THE DEFENDANT THE ATTORNEY IS LOOKING FOR — THAT HE DID NOT DOWNLOAD OR STREAM THE MOVIE TITLES PRODUCED BY BLACKED, TUSHY AND VIXEN, AND THAT HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PAYING A SETTLEMENT.

      FOR A DEFENDANT WHO DID DOWNLOAD OR STREAM THE MOVIE: THE GOAL OF THE “IGNORE” ROUTE IS TO CREATE A BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY AND THE ACCUSED JOHN DOE DEFENDANT.

      THE GOAL IS TO STOP THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FROM HAVING ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEFENDANT, TO STOP ALL CORRESPONDENCES AND SETTLEMENT DEMAND LETTERS, AND TO FUNNEL ALL COMMUNICATIONS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE CASHMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC.  WE WOULD MONITOR THE CASE FOR CHANGES THAT AFFECT YOUR JOHN DOE ENTITY, AND WE WILL BE YOUR EYES AND EARS UNDERSTANDING EVERY EVENT THAT OCCURS IN THE CASE, AND WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF EACH EVENT IS.

      THE INTENDED OUTCOME IS FOR THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY TO DECIDE TO NAME AND SERVE OTHER DEFENDANTS (AND THIS DOES HAPPEN).  HOWEVER, SHOULD YOUR DEFENSE ATTORNEY DECIDE THERE IS A “HIGH RISK” OF BEING NAMED AND SERVED, SETTLEMENT WILL BE SUGGESTED.

      4) HAVE AN ATTORNEY DRAFT A “NO SETTLEMENT LETTER” ON YOUR BEHALF INFORMING THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY 1) THAT NOBODY IN THE FAMILY WATCHED OR DOWNLOADED THE MOVIE, AND THAT 2) NO SETTLEMENT WILL BE PAID, PERIOD.

      NOTE: A “NO SETTLEMENT LETTER” IS A DISCOUNTED MEANS OF INFORMING THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY THAT NO SETTLEMENT PAYMENT WILL BE MADE, AND THAT HIS CHOICE IS EITHER TO NAME AND SERVE THE DEFENDANT OR LEAVE HIM BE.  BECAUSE THIS IS A DISCOUNTED “BAREBONES” STRATEGY, NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION WILL BE MADE WITH THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY.

      RESOURCES:

      CONTACT AN ATTORNEY:

      CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

      SCENARIO 1: IF YOU HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, COMMENT, OR NEED A QUICK RESPONSE:

      • SMS / WHATSAPP YOUR QUESTION: 713-364-3476
      • E-MAIL YOUR QUESTION: [email protected], OR
      • FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW.

        SCENARIO 2: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT YOUR CASE AND YOUR OPTIONS, SET UP A PHONE CONSULTATION:

        FAQ SECTION:

        • Why are Strike 3 Holdings, LLC suing John Doe defendants?

          Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is suing John Doe defendants for the unlawful download or the streaming of adult movie titles produced under the Blacked, Tushy, Vixen, and Deeper brands.

        • What does Strike 3 Holdings, LLC want from me?

          Strike 3 Holdings, LLC wants one settlement for the unlawful download or streaming of their copyrighted adult movie titles produced under the Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen brands.

        • How far is Strike 3 Holdings, LLC willing to go in their lawsuits?

          How far Strike 3 Holdings is willing to go depends on which federal court the case is filed in. It depends on the proclivities of the plaintiff attorney, and whether he is willing to name and serve each defendant. It also depends on whether the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC local counsel is willing or able to conduct discovery to determine whether the accused defendant actually downloaded their copyrighted videos.

        • How does Strike 3 Holdings, LLC typically sue defendants for copyright infringement?

          Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sues defendants by filing a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court. The lawsuit is filed against one unknown “John Doe” defendant accused of using one IP address.

        • Does Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sue immediately upon determining that the accused defendant is downloading or streaming their content?

          No. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC tracks the defendant for months or years before they file the lawsuit.

        • How does Strike 3 Holdings, LLC obtain the identity of the accused defendants?

          After filing the copyright infringement lawsuit in a federal court, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asks the federal judge to allow them to send a subpoena to the accused defendant’s ISP. The subpoena forces the ISP to prove them the accused defendant’s contact information and other relevant information.

        • Does Strike 3 Holdings, LLC only sue in federal courts?

          No. In 2019, Strike 3 Holdings exploited Florida’s Bill of Discovery laws and used the Miami-Dade Florida county court to expose the identity of thousands of accused defendants.

        • Who are the attorneys behind the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits?

          The attorneys behind the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits are Lincoln Bandlow and John Atkin.

          Strike 3 Holdings, LLC separates out their local counsel by territories. Some attorneys control all of the lawsuits in one or two states, others take entire territories. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC attorneys and their personalities can be found here.

        • When I am sued as a John Doe by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, what are my options.

          When sued as a John Doe defendant in a Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit, the three options are to 1) file a motion to quash (or decide why it is a good idea not to file a motion to quash), 2) settle the claims against you, or 3) fight the claims in court through litigation.

        ARTICLES WRITTEN ABOUT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC ACTIVITIES:

        Below are recent articles we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC have written on the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC plaintiff:

        Just The Facts: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC,” written on 11/5/2017

        Everything you need to know in one page about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen brand”) adult movie lawsuits and ISP subpoenas,” written on 11/5/2017

        HUMOR: Did Strike 3 Just Call Their Defendant “John Doe Infringer”?” written on 2/20/2020

        Why incorrect attorneys are listed on Strike 3 Holdings LLC case dockets,” written on 5/3/2019

        How Similar are Strike 3 Holdings and Malibu Media Lawsuits?” written on 11/15/2017

        Why Copyright Troll Non-Practicing Entities Should NOT Benefit From Copyright Laws,” written on 11/15/2017

        ARTICLES WRITTEN ABOUT THE 2019-2020 “MIAMI-DADE STRIKE 3” FLORIDA COUNTY COURT CASES:

        INITIAL ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW THEY ARE USING THE STATE COURTS TO UNMASK DEFENDANTS’ IDENTITIES.:

        Strike 3 Holdings is NOT suing Miami-Dade County defendants for copyright infringement,” written on 10/31/2019

        FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE EXPOSING THE ATTORNEYS BEHIND THE SCHEME

        Strike 3 Holdings Attorneys in Miami-Dade Florida County Have a “Behind The Scenes” Shadow,” written on 1/20/2020

        RECENT ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE LURING DEFENDANTS IN WITH A “BAIT AND SWITCH” WHICH ENDS UP FORCING THEM TO SETTLE OR BE SUED.

        Why filing a motion to quash in a Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida case might not be the correct approach,” written on 2/10/2020

        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.

        Cashman Law Firm, PLLC | Logo


        10101 Fondren Road, Suite 452, Houston, TX 77096
        Tel: 713-364-3476
        Fax: 281-764-8744
        info [at] cashmanlawfirm.com

        © 2010-2020 by Cashman Law Firm, PLLC.
        All Rights Reserved.

        Strike 3 Holdings – List of Cases by State (July 2020)

        strike-3-holdings-connection-between-miami-dade-county-and-federal-court-cases

        Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed roughly 127 copyright infringement lawsuits in federal courts (US District Courts) across the US in the past 150 days (this time last year, they were filing on average 111 cases each month). They appear to have focused their lawsuits on the US District Courts in the states of California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Connecticut, and Nevada. As often as it is useful, I will be listing the Strike Holdings cases which are filed in each state.

        Strike 3 Holdings LLC is a well known copyright troll, and our TorrentLawyer.com blog (owned by the Cashman Law Firm PLLC) has written about them extensively. I’m not sure I love the idea of doing it this way, but I would like to list in one page the list of Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases filed in each state. I plan on repeating this process each month (or if too cumbersome, once every few months). I also ask that other attorneys DO NOT COPY THIS LIST, AS I HAVE COMPILED THIS LIST MYSELF AT MY OWN EXPENSE.

        What is a Copyright Troll?

        A “copyright troll” is an entity — usually a film or movie studio, a production studio, or some other holder of hundreds of copyrights — it decides it is more profitable to sue end viewers (the bittorrent users) rather than to adhere to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) rules in attempting to remove bittorrent links which allow these end viewers to unlawfully watch their copyrighted titles.

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        It is now 7/17/2020, and I am going “back in time” to write this article, and I won’t hide why. Many of you from the March 2020 lawsuits are only now receiving ISP subpoena notices, and I wanted to be sure that as soon as you type in your case, at least something relevant will show up that will point you to where you can get help.

        Other “Strike 3 Holdings by month” articles that I have written thus far are for the MARCH 2019, APRIL 2019, and more recently, the JANUARY 2020 cases (until now, there was not a need to write an update).

        As you might have read, in the middle of 2019, there was a “shuffling” of attorneys who were authorized to represent Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. You could read about that fiasco here in the article entitled, “Why Incorrect Attorneys Are Listed on Strike 3 Holdings LLC Case Dockets,” written on 5/3/2019.

        More recently, Strike 3 Holdings has devised a way to unmask the identities of THOUSANDS of defendants without needing to sue each defendant in Federal Court. They have done this by exploiting the Florida “Pure Bill of Discovery” laws, and thus far, the Miami-Dade, Florida judges are allowing them to continue this scheme.

        If you are involved in a Miami-Dade Florida state-based lawsuit, there is much that you will need to understand, as these cases differ from the copyright infringement lawsuits which are filed in federal courts.

        • INITIAL ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW STRIKE 3 IS USING THE STATE COURTS TO UNMASK DEFENDANTS’ IDENTITIES.
        • FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE EXPOSING THE “BOSSES” BEHIND THE SCHEME
        • RECENT ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE LURING DEFENDANTS IN WITH A “BAIT AND SWITCH” — OFFERING TO FILE A MOTION TO QUASH KNOWING IT WILL END UP FORCING THEIR CLIENTS TO SETTLE OR BE SUED.

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        WHERE TO LEARN ABOUT THE STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES?

        For those of you looking for an initial understanding of the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC copyright holder, you can click here to read the “JUST THE FACTS – STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC” article I wrote about them.

        For those of you looking to delve deeper into who is Strike 3 Holdings LLC and what are they looking for, you can click here to read the “EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ONE PAGE ABOUT YOUR STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC” article I wrote afterwards.

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        CALIFORNIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (2/2020 – 7/2020)

        Strike 3 Holdings California Central District Court

        Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 108.245.73.214 (Case No. 2:20-cv-03586)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.149.70.163 (Case No. 5:20-cv-01068)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.112.65.223 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05923)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.87.197.120 (Case No. 5:20-cv-01393)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.33.82.124 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04847)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.240.176.140 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05585)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 162.203.152.89 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05588)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.219.217.71 (Case No. 8:20-cv-01094)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.5.187.151 (Case No. 8:20-cv-01097)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.90.182.136 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05584)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.243.212.17 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05586)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.93.107.199 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05587)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.173.251.105 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05338)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.185.174.240 (Case No. 5:20-cv-01195)
        … v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.119.0.105 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05220)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.175.239.166 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05214)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.222.218.168 (Case No. 5:20-cv-01198)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.168.109.184 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05225)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.94.238.164 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05228)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.174.118.71 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06262)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.250.76.115 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06260)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.164.4 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06261)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.91.109.161 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05920)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.171.112.233 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04553)
        …v. John Doe (Case No. 2:20-cv-04550)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.116.98.255 (Case No. 5:20-cv-01067)
        …v. John Doe (Case No. 2:20-cv-04550)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.116.98.255 (Case No. 5:20-cv-01067)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.169.166.16 (Case No. 8:20-cv-00937)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.171.112.233 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04553)
        …v. John Doe (Case No. 2:20-cv-04519)
        …v. John Doe (Case No. 2:20-cv-04519)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.174.78.207 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04347)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.243.188.38 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04343)
        …v. John Doe (Case No. 2:20-cv-04349)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.117.158.27 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04351)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.243.188.38 (Case No. 2:20-cv-04343)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.4.5.33 (Case No. 8:20-cv-00513)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.198.179.107 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02386)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 72.211.202.161 (Case No. 8:20-cv-00503)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.146.41.71 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02405)
        …v. John Doe (Case No. 2:20-cv-02379)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.33.66.8 (Case No. 2:20-cv-02064)
        …v. John Doe (Case Nos. 8:20-cv-00435, 5:20-cv-00425, 2:20-cv-04900, 2:20-cv-01730)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.131.200.50 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01773)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.91.221.26 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01736)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.91.30.7 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01772)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.35.148.0 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01436)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.102.254 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01438)
        …v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 47.150.2.180 (Case No. 5:20-cv-00942)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        California Northern District Court

        …v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 24.143.230.30 (Case No. 3:20-cv-03393)
        …v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 24.143.230.30 (Case No. 3:20-cv-03393)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.9.34 (Case No. 5:20-cv-03475)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.62.124.166 (Case No. 3:20-cv-03474)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.62.124.166 (Case No. 5:20-cv-03474)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.9.34 (Case No. 3:20-cv-03475)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.74.162.112 (Case No. 4:20-cv-04155)
        …v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 174.62.95.35 (Case No. 4:20-cv-04709)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.161.25.204 (Case No. 3:20-cv-03476)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.161.25.204 (Case No. 5:20-cv-03476)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.74.162.112 (Case No. 3:20-cv-04155)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.103.236.62 (Case No. 3:20-cv-04710)
        …v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 174.62.95.35 (Case No. 3:20-cv-04709)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.37.203.188 (Case No. 3:20-cv-03472)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        California Southern District Court

        …v. Doe infringer identified as using IP address 68.101.221.150 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00309)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.176.167.14, (Case No. 3:20-cv-01325)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 72.192.135.244 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00414)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 70.95.33.145 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00948)

        …v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:20-cv-00308, 3:20-cv-01149, 3:20-cv-01151)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        CONNECTICUT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (2/2020 – 7/2020)

        Connecticut District Court

        Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00313)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        FLORIDA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (2/2020 – 7/2020)

        Florida Middle District Court

        Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Porter (Case No. 8:20-cv-01032)

        Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case Nos. 8:20-cv-00503, 6:20-cv-00341, 8:20-cv-00505, 8:20-cv-00504, 8:20-cv-01263)

        …v. Doe (Case Nos. 8:20-cv-00502, 8:20-cv-01327, 8:20-cv-00677, 8:20-cv-01444, 8:20-cv-01328, 8:20-cv-01329)

        Florida Southern District Court

        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 134.56.140.149 (Case No. 1:20-cv-22038)

        …v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-20499, 1:20-cv-20517, 1:20-cv-20516, 1:20-cv-20503, 1:20-cv-20647, 1:20-cv-20506)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        ILLINOIS STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (2/2020 – 7/2020)

        Illinois Northern District Court

        Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-01243, 1:20-cv-01924, 1:20-cv-01412)
        …v. DOE (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-02726, 1:20-cv-00773, 1:20-cv-03897, 1:20-cv-03897, 1:20-cv-02719, 1:20-cv-01301)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        MARYLAND STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (2/2020 – 7/2020)

        Maryland District Court

        Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-01267)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        NEVADA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (2/2020 – 7/2020)

        Nevada District Court

        Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Infringer (Case No. 2:20-cv-00589)
        …v. John Doe IP Address 70.170.50.85 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00372)
        …v. John Doe IP Address 72.193.217.207 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00373)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        NEW JERSEY STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (2/2020 – 7/2020)

        New Jersey District Court

        STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE INFRINGER IDENTIFIED AS USING IP ADDRESS 73.226.55.141 (Case No. 3:20-cv-05659)
        …v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 68.83.56.212 (Case No. 3:20-cv-02676)
        …v. JOHN DOE INFRINGER INDENTIFIED AS USING IP ADDRESS 69.113.113.228 (Case No. 2:20-cv-03084)
        …v. JOHN DOE INFRINGER IDENTIFIED AS USING IP ADDRESS 69.112.42.23 (Case No. 2:20-cv-05646)
        …v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP ADDRESS 73.193.240.189 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01616)
        …v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.191.198.108 (Case No. 3:20-cv-08061)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        NEW YORK STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (2/2020 – 7/2020)

        New York Eastern District Court

        Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-01022)

        New York Southern District Court

        Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-01525, 1:20-cv-01528, 1:20-cv-03692, 1:20-cv-01435, 1:20-cv-01529, 1:20-cv-05425, 6:20-cv-06122, 6:20-cv-06113, 1:20-cv-00784, 6:20-cv-06505)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

        VIRGINIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (2/2020 – 7/2020)

        Virginia Eastern District Court

        Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00171)

        Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >


        [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Strike 3 Holdings LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

        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.

          Skip to content