Found 2026-09-10 by a statewide party sweep of the Pennsylvania appellate courts on the Unified Judicial System portal, a search no prior pass had run; the appeal was not previously recorded. Captioned 'Frank Tufano v. PPL Electric Utilities and Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC' and taken from Lackawanna County 2025-03175, the docket this row's case carries. The Superior Court's own appeal docket sheet records an Order Entered below on 2026-07-14 (James A. Gibbons, P.J.), a Notice of Appeal filed 2026-07-20, docketing 2026-07-27, case status Active with processing status 'Awaiting Appellant Paperbooks', and appellant's brief and reproduced record due 2026-09-28. The content of the 2026-07-14 order was not read and is not recorded here. Appellant pro se; both appellees are recorded as unrepresented. The Superior Court records this appeal as related to Nos. 1154 and 1155 MDA 2026 on a similar-issues basis - the three were docketed the same day, on notices of appeal all filed 2026-07-20. Update 2026-09-23: the trial docket records an Aug. 4, 2026 order directing a concise statement, the statement filed Aug. 5, 2026, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinions of Aug. 7 and Aug. 11, 2026, and transmission of the record and certified docket entries to the Superior Court on Aug. 11 and Aug. 21, 2026. Read from the trial docket only — the Pennsylvania appellate portal was unreachable this pass.
Record source — ujsportal.pacourts.us ↗Tufano v. PPL
2025-03175 · Lackawanna County
About this case
Evidentiary treatment: This summarizes the plaintiff's own allegations as stated in the complaint or docket record cited below. It reflects what was filed, not a court finding, and is not a determination that the allegations are true.
Plaintiff filed this companion complaint against the same defendants (PPL Electric Utilities Corp. and Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC) two days after the court granted preliminary objections in his companion case C005, this time pleading violations of House Bill 45, Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and Title 42, arising from the same billing dispute described in C005. (Drawn from the Consent Petition's recitation; this case's own Verified Complaint was not independently read this session.)
Defendants
Source record
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Outcome and research status
Outcome reason: Filed 2025-04-23, two days after the court granted preliminary objections in companion case C005, alleging violations of House Bill 45, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and Title 42 against the same defendants (PPL Electric Utilities Corp. and Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC). Swept into the same 7/14/2025 Consent Petition for Final Decree as C005: Frontier settled for $4,500 and both parties agreed to dismiss all claims against Frontier, in both cases, with prejudice. The docket shows no order entered confirming court approval as of this check. This case's own docket was not independently paged this session; its filing date and claims are drawn from the Consent Petition's recitation, itself a filed court record. Update 2026-09-23: The county docket records the appellate steps below. On Aug. 4, 2026 President Judge James A. Gibbons ordered the plaintiff to file a concise statement of the matters complained of on appeal; the statement on appeal was filed Aug. 5, 2026; Gibbons filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on Aug. 7, 2026 and a second one dated Aug. 11, 2026, the record going to the Superior Court the same day; certified docket entries followed on Aug. 21, 2026. These opinions are on the docket and retrievable, and reading them would resolve the standing note that the content of the July 14, 2026 order has never been read.
Research status: Source-backed via companion case's Consent Petition filing; this case's own docket not independently paged this session
Research notes: See C005 -- same Frontier settlement and consent decree, recorded in a single joint filing covering both cases.
Related litigation
- Dispute group: PPL utilities litigation
Appellate history
Appeals taken from this docket record, with what the research does and does not establish about each.
Taking an appeal is a party’s filing, not a ruling — only an appellate court’s own disposition is a finding, and a disposition recorded here is a docket fact rather than reasoning unless the order itself was read. An appeal continues the action it arises from, so appeals are never counted as additional lawsuits: the case and originating-action counts published elsewhere on this site are unaffected by this section. Where a docket number or a current status is not recorded, that is a stated gap in the research, not a finding that none exists. See Methodology.
Filing-restriction indicators
Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.
C006 was filed against the identical two defendants named in C005 (PPL Electric Utilities Corp. and Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC) just two days after the court granted preliminary objections against Tufano on both defendants in C005. The 7/14/2025 Consent Petition for Final Decree itself treats the two cases as companion actions, resolving the Frontier claims in both with a single joint settlement.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Chronology events
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Tufano filed a companion complaint, C006, against the same two defendants (PPL Electric Utilities Corp. and Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC), two days after the court granted preliminary objections against him in C005.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Tufano jointly petitioned the court for a consent decree dismissing all claims against Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC -- in both C005 and companion case C006 -- with prejudice, following a $4,500 settlement with Frontier (no admission of wrongdoing). PPL Electric Utilities Corp. was not part of the settlement and remains unresolved in both cases; the docket shows no order entered confirming court approval of the decree as of this check.
Source — ic-access.com ↗The same joint Consent Petition for Final Decree, covering both C005 and C006: Frontier settled for $4,500 and consented to dismissal with prejudice in both cases; PPL Electric Utilities Corp. remains unresolved.
Source — ic-access.com ↗President Judge James A. Gibbons filed Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinions on Aug. 7 and Aug. 11, 2026, following his Aug. 4, 2026 order directing a concise statement; the record was sent to the Superior Court the same day.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Public video statements
Public statements are displayed separately from court findings. Quotations are transcribed from the video’s own YouTube auto-generated captions and timestamped from the caption cues covering the passage quoted. The Strong / Moderate / Context tier is this project’s research classification of how closely a statement bears on the documented filing patterns — it is not a judicial finding. Any second badge names the filing-restriction factor the statement’s own words describe; it records what the speaker said, not that a court found it.
How quotations are marked: An ellipsis (…) inside a quotation marks words left out between two passages of the same video, which can sit some minutes apart. The omitted wording is not reproduced here, and a clip on the statement supercut plays the whole span from the quotation’s first word to its last — so it includes the omitted material. Quotations without an ellipsis are continuous speech.
the power is out over there too and I think over like 20,000 people have a power outage just you know whatever type of weather Warfare they've been doing to us lately there's like so much wind the wind was so bad I should probably take you guys outside and show you literally like half the trees in the woods around me or down it's insane so like all these power lines are down there's issues everywhere so hope hopefully it comes back soon thankfully the internet and everything is fine down at my warehouse
C005 (Tufano v. PPL Electric Utilities, Lackawanna 2025-01448, filed 2025-02-18) and its companion C006 (Tufano v. PPL, 2025-03175, filed 2025-04-23), both part of the PPL utilities dispute, plead — per the recorded claims summary — "15-20 days of power outages over roughly 16 months causing food-spoilage and temporary-housing costs," with "$1,500 for outage-related expenses" sought. A 16-month window measured back from a February-2025 filing reaches into late 2023, so this outage falls inside the period later pleaded, and the video is contemporaneous on-camera documentation of one of the events the case is built from — 319 days before C005 was filed. That is exactly the pre-filing interval a docket cannot show. But the direction of the grievance does not match yet. He attributes the outage to wind and fallen trees, names no utility at all, claims no loss (he has a generator and states the warehouse is unaffected), and at 11:04 says the utility is "getting things up and running pretty quick." So this video evidences that an outage occurred, not that a grievance against PPL existed on 2024-04-05 — a right-party, wrong-grievance link in reverse, which is why none is drawn here.
Watch at 00:43 — youtube.com ↗knows I don't I don't know if that's typical of this area for the power to be out so many times this year like it's ridiculous
sharpens the quote above from a single incident into a pattern claim, which is the shape C005 pleads ("15-20 days of power outages over roughly 16 months"). He also fixes a second incident at 9:29 — "last time that happened which was like a few weeks ago it was worse" — so two outages inside roughly a month are attested on camera in early 2024. Still no utility named, still no fault attributed, still no loss claimed.
Watch at 09:58 — youtube.com ↗The electric company has charged me $4,100, which is completely insane. I have a small house. I mean, I have electric heat, but they like doubled my rate without a contractor, without my permission, and then they misread the meter. When I tried to call Frontier, they said to call PPL. When I called PPL, they said to call Frontier.
The only description of what C005/C006 are substantively about anywhere in this research's material. Three distinct grievances — an unauthorised rate change, a misread meter, and a runaround between the two defendants — plus the amount ($4,100, Jan–Mar 2025) and the fact that both tracked defendants, Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC and PPL Electric Utilities Corp, are named. Neither case yet has a claims summary in this research, and this account is directly usable for writing one.
Why this classification: Background on the disputed $4,100 charge, the rate change, the meter reading and being passed between the two utilities.
Watch at 00:15 — youtube.com ↗Frontier actually offered me like $3,000 to settle the case, but that doesn't even cover the electric bill.
The dataset records the outcome of this negotiation but not its course. C005's row states Frontier settled for $4,500 (Settlement Agreement, 2025-05-23, no admission of wrongdoing). This video, 2025-03-22, documents an earlier $3,000 offer and his stated reason for refusing it. Read with the docket, the sequence is: $3,000 offered and declined (March) → preliminary objections granted 2025-04-21 → $4,500 settlement 2025-05-23 → joint consent petition 2025-07-14. A dated, checkable data point on a tracked settlement that no dataset field currently holds. It is his own account of an offer, not a document.
Why this classification: Reports a $3,000 settlement offer from Frontier and rejects it as not covering the disputed bill.
Watch at 00:54 — youtube.com ↗So, we just got out of this Grand Courthouse. We had a hearing for the temporary restraining order so that the electric company doesn't turn off my power while we're trying to settle this dispute. They basically charged me $5,000 for 3 months of residential electric service.
Confirms, in the first person and in the past tense (“we just got out”), that a hearing on the temporary-restraining-order request in the PPL/Frontier dispute took place. The recorded litigation timeline for that dispute records no hearing event at all — it jumps from the complaint's filing (2025-02-18) straight to preliminary objections being granted (2025-04-21). The restraining order itself is a pleaded request: the claims-summary record for C005 notes that he “sought … a restraining order against shutoff.” This states a docket event the dataset does not have. Its date is not established by this video.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Related video research
Each video has its own research page with its verified publish date, timestamped statements and case links. A researched link between a video and a docket record is not a finding of causation in either direction.
Cite this page
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. PPL (2025-03175)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/2025-03175-tufano-v-ppl/