Concurrent state complaint filed
A Lackawanna County complaint underlying C035/C066 was dated the same day as C063.
Source — dockets.justia.com ↗Tufano v. The State of California
2026-01161 · Lackawanna County
Removed to federal court; pending in available docket snapshotRemoved to federal courtPennsylvania
CourtLackawanna County
FiledFebruary 23, 2026
StatusRemoved to federal court; pending in available docket snapshot
OutcomeRemoved to federal court
Final disposition—
JurisdictionPennsylvania
Pro seYes
Current / transferee courtU.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Transferred case3:26-cv-00840
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.
The 38-page verified complaint traces to an underlying medical-malpractice dispute against Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Mehryar Ray Taban, MD. Plaintiff alleges the State of California courts denied him a fair proceeding on that dispute — ignoring his filings and discriminating against his “Non-Freemasonic” religious beliefs in favor of Dr. Taban and co-defendants — and that every malpractice firm he contacted in Los Angeles County declined to represent him, which he attributes to a conspiracy protecting Beverly Hills plastic surgeons. Having been unable to recuse the California judge, he re-filed the underlying dispute in Lackawanna County against the State of California, the Medical Board of California, several ophthalmology/cosmetic-surgery professional associations, the Beverly Hills Masonic Lodge, Dr. Taban and his practice, and law firms Lavely & Singer and KJar McKenna & Stockalper.
The complaint pleads an Equal Protection claim under the 14th Amendment (religious discrimination against non-Freemasons) among its counts, and quotes text purported to be Masonic initiation oaths in support of its conspiracy theory — noted here as pleaded allegation only. A request for a temporary restraining order asks the court to name Lavely & Singer as a co-defendant and bar it and Dr. Taban from contacting any social-media platform about Tufano’s business, citing his still-unrestored TikTok account.
Defendants
- The State of California
- Beverly Hills Masonic Lodge
- Mehryar Ray Taban MD
- Mehryar Taban MD Inc
- The Medical Board of California
- American Academy of Ophthalmology
- American Board of Cosmetic Surgery
- American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic & Reconstru
- Lavely & Singer PC Lawyer profile
- Kjar McKenna & Stockalper LLP Lawyer profile
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: Removed to the Middle District of Pennsylvania on April 2, 2026. The accessible federal docket showed multiple motions to dismiss and a live dispute over venue/remand; no final disposition was verified.
Research status: Source-backed concurrent related action
Research notes: The Lackawanna complaint is dated Feb. 23, 2026, the same date C063 was filed in federal court. After removal as C066, Tufano filed a May 14, 2026 request stating that there were 'two identical Federal matters' causing confusion. Treat this as a concurrent duplicate/related-action issue, not a refiling after an adverse judgment. Update 2026-08-21: Direct LPA portal read of the Verified Complaint confirms this is a re-filed medical-malpractice dispute against Dr. Mehryar Ray Taban, alleging California courts discriminated against Tufano's non-Freemason religious beliefs. Docket also shows a previously untracked Objection to Notice of Removal filed 2026-04-17.
Related litigation
- Previous related case: 3:26-cv-00447 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
- Same underlying action / other docket: 3:26-cv-00840 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
- Dispute group: Taban / eye-surgery-related litigation
Chronology events
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Pennsylvania cross-forum relationships
Confirmed removalHigh
Federal Notice of Removal identifies Lackawanna 2026-01161.
Federal source — dockets.justia.com ↗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.
Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
You can't in America either, dude. They own the court system. I have to sue the state of California because a corrupt judge dismissed my lawsuit in the California state court. I didn't even get it to trial. They just throw the case out.
He states that a corrupt judge dismissed his lawsuit in the California state court before it reached trial, and that he therefore has to sue the State of California. He gives no docket number, so which tracked action he means is not established. The hypothetical objection voiced immediately before these words is one he is rebutting, not his own position, and a clip started at the deep link will include it.
Why this classification: Strong because he ties a new action against the State of California directly to an earlier dismissal, which is a new suit after an adverse decision rather than an appeal within the same case, and he alleges judicial corruption in the same breath. This is a research classification of what he said, not a judicial finding.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:06 in the archived transcript. Play at 16:51 in this project’s compilation ↗
Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
all we can do now is file a conspiracy case against the entire California State Bar Association and the California Legal System because no attorney in the entire state of California will represent me.
Announces a contemplated conspiracy action against the state bar association and legal system, on the stated ground that no attorney in the state will represent him. It was published four days after the order in the tracked medical action.
Why this classification: Announces a new action against a named target days after an adverse decision in the identified dispute. A new action rather than an appeal, so the adverse-decision factor applies.
Source removed. Play at 21:07 in this project’s compilation ↗
Legal-system allegation¶
landlord is still trying to evict us in court and everyone including my own lawyer seems to be on the side of the jerk off secret society members and you know the continued censorship of my YouTube channel
Three separate things in one sentence, and only one of them is a filing-restriction factor. (1) An eviction proceeding against him is live on 2022-10-25 — direction trap 1 applies squarely: the landlord is the moving party, so this is not a filing by him and cannot support any filing factor. (2) He alleges that the participants in that proceeding, including his own retained lawyer, are aligned with "secret society members" against him. That is an allegation that the forum is not honestly disposed toward him, which is what Judicial or forum bias alleged covers; it is a research classification of what he said, never a finding about any court, lawyer or organisation. (3) The YouTube-censorship grievance is restated. The tier is Moderate rather than Strong because no factor here is a core factor, no case is named, and the eviction matter resolves to no row in any of the 23 CSVs. Possible case/dispute link: Not found in aliases.csv, lawsuits.csv (case_title or defendants), disputes.csv, research_notes.csv or litigation_timeline.csv — the strings landlord and evict return zero across all 23 CSVs, so the eviction proceeding is unresolved, not untracked. No landlord, court or docket is named on camera either. Separately, the "secret society" framing later becomes a pleaded theory in several tracked actions (C038, C048, C059, C035/C063/C066, and aliases.csv carries Beverly Hills Masonic Lodge D0043 and Free and Accepted Masons of Union Lodge No 291 D0108), but he names nobody here, so direction trap 5 applies and no party link is licensed.
Source removed. Quoted at 05:20 in the archived transcript.
Conspiracy allegation / litigation framing¶
I knew these Secret Society people didn't like me. I knew that all these doctors are in that club. So, I was genuinely scared that they would botch me on purpose.
The secret-society discrimination theory stated in the speaker's own words four days before two complaints pleading it were filed on the same day. Both of those complaints name a Masonic lodge as a defendant and plead discrimination on religious and equal-protection grounds. The video names no case, and publication four days earlier does not establish when the words were spoken.
Why this classification: States the theory two later complaints plead, which places it in the chronology of a tracked dispute, but it announces no filing, names no case and describes no filing conduct of any kind.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:08 in the archived transcript.
Conspiracy allegation / litigation framing¶
Hey, these doctors can botch you on purpose. Maybe if you're a different religion or you're from a different group of people or you're not in the club.
Names religion specifically as the possible ground of the alleged discrimination, which is the frame one of the later complaints uses and which the federal companion pleads as an equal-protection theory. Sharper than the earlier quote because it identifies the protected characteristic rather than only the club.
Why this classification: Identifies the protected characteristic that two complaints filed four days later plead, which places it in a tracked dispute's chronology, but it names no case and describes no filing conduct.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:35 in the archived transcript.
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.
- Time to sue ALL CALIFORNIA LAWYERS??Source removed
- Will American Plastic Surgery DIE OUT?!Source removed
- Did Dr. Taban BOTCH ME ON PURPOSE?!Source removed
- Frankie's Free Range Meat Vlog - Product Restocks and UpdatesSource removed
Cite this page
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. The State of California (2026-01161)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/2026-01161-tufano-v-the-state-of-california/