New complaint filed (separate federal action)
Tufano filed a separate federal complaint, C051, against Fenix Internet LLC, six days after filing the state complaint C011.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
3:25-cv-00976 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Pending; Motion for Default Judgment denied (2026-07-28); proof-of-service deadline set for Aug. 27, 2026 under FRCP 4(m)Default-judgment motion denied (non-final); FRCP 4(m) service deadline setPennsylvania
CourtU.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
FiledJune 2, 2025
StatusPending; Motion for Default Judgment denied (2026-07-28); proof-of-service deadline set for Aug. 27, 2026 under FRCP 4(m)
OutcomeDefault-judgment motion denied (non-final); FRCP 4(m) service deadline set
Final disposition—
JurisdictionPennsylvania
Pro se—
Current / transferee court—
Transferred case—
Last researchedAugust 22, 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 sued Fenix Internet LLC, doing business as OnlyFans. The docket records a cause of action citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act), indicating an allegation framed in civil-rights terms against a private company. Filed June 2, 2025, with a contemporaneous motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The factual basis and relief sought are not detailed in the indexed materials reviewed.
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: On July 28, 2026, the court denied Tufano's motion for default judgment and set an Aug. 27, 2026 deadline for proof of service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), on pain of dismissal. Most recent docket entry as of this pass (Aug. 13, 2026) is Tufano's response to that order.
Research status: Source-backed (PacerMonitor docket snapshot)
Research notes: Docket snapshot only. C052 (same DSP005 dispute) was stayed in Dec. 2025 pending resolution of this case.
Related litigation
- Dispute group: Fenix Internet litigation
Chronology events
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Non-final order (action stayed pending related case)
The court stayed C052 until 30 days following resolution of the related action C051 (3:25-cv-00976). No lift-stay entry appears on the docket as of 2026-08-21, so the amended default-judgment motions Tufano filed in C052 on 2026-06-10 and 2026-06-23 were both filed while the stay was in effect.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Non-final order (default-judgment motion denied)
The court denied Tufano's motion for default judgment in C051 and set an Aug. 27, 2026 deadline for proof of service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), on pain of dismissal.
Source — courtlistener.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.
Filing announcement¶
This week, we filed a case in both the federal court and the state court. As if a judge is going to do the right thing, though. They're probably just going to dismiss the case and I'm going to be screwed as usual, losing money.
A self-reported parallel filing that the docket independently confirms. In the ten days before publication the tracker records exactly that pattern, twice over: C050 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00975) and C051 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00976) filed 2025-06-02, and C013 (Lackawanna 2025-04276, Tufano v. Shopify) and C014 (Lackawanna 2025-04277, Tufano v. TikTok) filed 2025-06-06. This is one of the rare cases where a self-report about filing conduct can be checked against the docket and matches. The second half alleges the outcome is predetermined ("as if a judge is going to do the right thing"), which is Judicial or forum bias alleged.
Watch at 00:47 — 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. Fenix Internet LLC (3:25-cv-00976)". Research last verified August 22, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-25-cv-00976-tufano-v-fenix-internet-llc/