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. Update 2026-10-03: Re-checked against the county’s own docket. The last entry remains the transmission of certified docket entries to the Superior Court on Aug. 21, 2026, and the case carries no coded disposition. The appellate docket itself could not be read: the Pennsylvania appellate portal has been refusing connections since at least Sept. 23, 2026, so whether the briefs due Sept. 28, 2026 were filed is unknown.
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.
These quotations can no longer be checked at their source. Every quotation on this site was transcribed from the speaker’s own YouTube channel. That channel was removed in October 2026; on 23 October 2026 all 980 catalogued video ids returned “not found”, and the channel address itself no longer resolves. YouTube’s own basis for removing it is not part of any record this project can verify, so none is asserted here. Nothing was withdrawn by this project.
What survives is the evidence, not the link. The verbatim caption transcript each quotation was read from was archived, dated, at the time the video was catalogued, and the timestamp on each card is the moment in that transcript where the words appear. The transcripts are held unaltered and are not republished. What a reader can no longer do is open the original and hear it, and nothing on this site can restore that. Seventy-four statements — those whose own words name a core filing-restriction factor — survive as clips in this project’s own compilation, and those cards link into it at the right moment. Nothing else is re-hosted. See Methodology.
it's not that dark in here but I don't think this light works I mean this new house guys I need one of every Tradesmen in here to fix this stuff because nothing's working
The earliest dated on-camera grievance about the new premises located in this slice. It is a contractor/trades grievance in the register that precedes the tracked Carbondale premises litigation, published 2023-07-08 — 423 days before C002 (Tufano v. Crispino, Lackawanna, filed 2024-09-03) and 190 days after the 2022-12-30 Stipulation Against Liens that recorded the underlying refrigeration contract (both intervals computed as plain date differences from the dates named). No party, trade, company or address is named, so nothing here identifies which contractor, or whether any contractor he later sued is in view; the party is deliberately left open. It describes no filing, no threatened filing, no court and no prior action, which is why the factor is No filing-conduct factor and the tier cannot rise above Moderate. The paired opener at [0:00] — "some of you guys might have noticed we're in a new space" — dates the relocation to shortly before this upload. Possible case/dispute link: Tentative and unconfirmed. DSP012 (Crispino refrigeration) and DSP021 (Fidelity Bank mortgage on 25-31 Dundaff Street, Carbondale) both attach to the Carbondale premises, and C005/C006 (Tufano v. PPL Electric Utilities, filed 2025-02-18 and 2025-04-23) concern electricity at the premises — but the complaint here is a light fixture inside a building he has just moved into, not a utility supply grievance and not refrigeration, so direction trap 4 (right party, wrong grievance) would defeat any of those links on this transcript alone. Recorded as premises-grievance context with the party open, not as a link to any case.
Source removed. Quoted at 11:49 in the archived transcript.
know we're trying to save on the electric bill in here it's actually about the same price as I was paying in New York but it's a much larger building so I'm not getting completely screwed
A dated, first-person statement about the electricity cost of the commercial premises he was then operating from, made ~18 months before the utility-billing litigation the dataset tracks. DSP016 (PPL utilities litigation) holds two 2025 Lackawanna docket records against PPL Electric Utilities and Frontier Utilities, and C005's claims summary pleads a monthly bill rising from $333.02 (November) to $1,603.75 (February) as unconscionable price-gouging. This statement is the opposite polarity: as of publication he describes the bill as normal for the building's size and says in terms that he is "not getting completely screwed". It also independently records the New York → larger-building relocation from his own mouth, with the New York tenancy in the past tense. It describes no filing conduct whatsoever — no filing made, threatened, counted or lost — so the factor is No filing-conduct factor and the tier is Moderate on chronology, not on conduct. Possible case/dispute link: tentative and not an adjacency. The transcript names no utility, no landlord and no building — "in here" and "a much larger building" are the only identifiers. It must not be promoted as a C005/C006 or DSP016 statement; what it supports is a before datapoint on the utility-cost chronology and the relocation timeline. Unconfirmed.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:19 in the archived transcript.
or like here's an example like my electric bill was like four thousand dollars last month but now I found a different electrical supplier so it's going to be like 3 200 so still not too happy about it but it's not that bad
DSP016 is the PPL utilities litigation — C005 (Tufano v. PPL Electric Utilities, Lackawanna 2025-01448, filed 2025-02-18, 512 days after this video was published) and C006 (filed 2025-04-23, 576 days after), both naming PPL Electric Utilities Corp. and Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC. In Pennsylvania the distribution utility and the competitive electricity supplier are separate roles, and Frontier Utilities Northeast is a supplier — so I found a different electrical supplier on this date describes exactly the kind of switch that produced the later billing relationship. ⚠ But the figures do not match the pleaded ones and must not be reconciled. C005 pleads a bill rising from $333.02 (November) to $1,603.75 (February); this video says about four thousand dollars last month falling to about 3 200. Those are different premises, different periods, or both — this file records both sets and takes no position. No party is named in the transcript: a different electrical supplier, nothing more. Possible case/dispute link: DSP016 / C005 / C006 (tentative, unconfirmed — no party named, and the figures disagree with what was pleaded 512 days later).
Source removed. Quoted at 15:51 in the archived transcript.
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:43 in the archived transcript.
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 09:58 in the archived transcript.
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:15 in the archived transcript.
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:54 in the archived transcript.
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.
Source removed.
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.
- Sellout Judge immediately sides with Electric Company to GOUGE CUSTOMERSource removed
- PPL Electric Lawsuit UpdateSource removed
- $4000 Electric Bill!?Source removed
- POWER OUTAGE Day of Eating VlogSource removed
- Free Range Meat Weekly #1 NEW STUFF! HOMELESS GUY!?Source removed
- RAW CHEESE BACK! Lamb Chops! New Products and Restocks at Frankie's Free Range MeatSource removed
- How to Cook the BEST STEAK EVER! With a Butter Collagen SauceSource removed
Cite this page
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. PPL (2025-03175)". Research last verified October 3, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/2025-03175-tufano-v-ppl/