Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Case research · C007
Tufano v. Lackawanna County Assistance Office
2025-03927 · Lackawanna County
Pending; no disposition. Docket shows only the complaint and proofs of service.Pennsylvania
CourtLackawanna County
FiledMay 27, 2025
StatusPending; no disposition. Docket shows only the complaint and proofs of service.
Outcome—
Final disposition—
JurisdictionPennsylvania
Pro seYes
Current / transferee court—
Transferred case—
Last researchedSeptember 23, 2026
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 alleges he has been denied public-assistance benefits (LIHEAP heating assistance and SNAP/EBT food stamps) on at least three occasions because he could not complete a phone interview the Lackawanna County Assistance Office requires as part of the benefits application, alleging the office is “near-impossible to reach via phone” despite repeated weekday attempts during business hours.
He pleads a due-process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment and seeks $4,000 in heating-assistance reimbursement and $7,008 in SNAP reimbursement.
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Research status: Source-backed (direct LPA portal docket + case detail)
Research notes: Confirmed by direct review of the Verified Complaint and docket via the Lackawanna Prothonotary's portal. No preliminary objections or orders on the docket as of this check; last activity 2026-03-18 (Proof of Service).
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.
I spent every day last week writing up lawsuits, suing this oven company because they won't send me replacement parts for the oven. I'm suing the bank because they didn't uh honor my mortgage terms. I'm suing these I literally filed seven lawsuits last week and it looks like we're going to be filing a few more.
A self-reported filing count that the docket data corroborates exactly, with two of the seven identified by their subject matter in the same breath. The case tracker records exactly seven actions filed in the week Monday 2025-05-26 → Sunday 2025-06-01: C007, C008, C009, C010, C011 and C012 (all Lackawanna County, 2025-05-27) and C097 (New York Supreme Court, 2025-05-29). "Suing this oven company because they won't send me replacement parts for the oven" is C012, Tufano v. Rational USA Inc (2025-03932), whose own claims summary reads: "purchased a commercial 'Rational' combi oven … that arrived missing parts; the parts supplier … and Rational USA took more than six months to provide the missing parts, then sent the wrong ones, after which Rational ceased contact." "I'm suing the bank because they didn't uh honor my mortgage terms" is C009, Tufano v. Fidelity Bank (2025-03929), part of the Fidelity Bank mortgage and flood-insurance dispute, which the recorded litigation timeline shows filed 2025-05-27 "over the disputed payoff and flood-insurance charge." The Repeat filing on the same dispute factor is carried by C011 (Fenix Internet, filed about six and a half months after C042's dismissal) and C010 (USDA, about two months after C049's dismissal), which the recorded litigation timeline characterises as new complaints on already-litigated grievances — though he does not say so here. The count matching is a corroboration, not proof he meant those seven. He names two; the other five are inferred from the calendar alone.
So, I get denied as a Snap retailer at my storefront. I find out that the USDA is offering dozens of other online companies the ability to use SNAP EBT on their online store. And to top it all off, even McDonald's accepts EBT now. But nope, not Frankie's freerange meat.
This is the pleaded allegation of two tracked actions, stated in his own voice and dated. The claims-summary record for C010 (Tufano v. USDA, Lackawanna 2025-03930, filed 2025-05-27) records that he “alleges the USDA denied him the ability to accept SNAP/EBT payments, causing an estimated $300,000 in lost revenue”; and for C007 (Tufano v. Lackawanna County Assistance Office, 2025-03927, filed the same day) that he “alleges he has been denied public-assistance benefits (LIHEAP heating assistance and SNAP/EBT food stamps) … seeks $4,000 in heating-assistance reimbursement and $7,008 in SNAP reimbursement.” Note the distinction the video collapses: C007 is about him being denied benefits as a recipient; C010 and this video are about him being denied status as a SNAP retailer. Both were pending when this was published. The video announces, threatens and reports no filing.
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.
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. Lackawanna County Assistance Office (2025-03927)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/2025-03927-tufano-v-lackawanna-county-assistance-office/