Notice of removal
Fenix Internet LLC removed C011 to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where it continues as C052 (same originating action as C011).
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
3:25-cv-01165 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Pending; stayed since 2025-12-18 pending resolution of C051 (3:25-cv-00976); no lift-stay entry appears on the docket as of 2026-08-21Pennsylvania
CourtU.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
FiledJune 26, 2025
StatusPending; stayed since 2025-12-18 pending resolution of C051 (3:25-cv-00976); no lift-stay entry appears on the docket as of 2026-08-21
Outcome—
Final disposition—
JurisdictionPennsylvania
Pro se—
Current / transferee court—
Transferred case—
Last researchedOctober 3, 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.
This action originated as Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC, No. 25-CV-3931, filed pro se in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, and was removed to federal court by Fenix Internet LLC on June 26, 2025. The docket classifies the cause of action as employment/job discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII). Tufano filed objections to the removal. The specific factual allegations underlying the discrimination claim and the relief sought are not available in the indexed materials reviewed.
CourtListener/RECAP independently corroborates the docket coding already on file: nature of suit 442 Civil Rights: Jobs, cause 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment), jurisdiction Federal Question. The docket also confirms the action was removed 2025-06-26 from Lackawanna C.C.P. 25-CV-3931 by Fenix Internet LLC.
Sourcing limitation (23 Aug 2026): the complaint itself remains unread — no document on this docket is available through RECAP, and no published opinion exists for this case on GovInfo. The claims description above is therefore based on docket coding, not on the complaint's own text.
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
Research status: Source-backed (PacerMonitor docket snapshot) Update 2026-10-11: the free federal mirror of this docket is complete through Aug. 14, 2025 and carries nothing after that date, so the facts recorded above rest on a subscription docket service and are not independently verifiable from a free source.
Research notes: Update 2026-08-23: Resolves the stay-tension question held open on 2026-08-22. A stay order was entered 2025-12-18 staying the action until 30 days following resolution of the related matter (C051). No lift-stay entry appears on a PacerMonitor docket current through 2026-08-21, so the default-judgment motions of 2026-06-10 and 2026-06-23 were both filed during the stay. Also confirmed this pass: in forma pauperis status was denied 2025-08-27; the action was removed 2025-06-26 from Lackawanna C.C.P. 25-CV-3931 by Fenix Internet LLC; assigned to Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo; nature of suit 442 Civil Rights: Jobs, cause 42:2000e. This is a docket snapshot -- the stay order document itself was not read, so no judicial finding about the stay's effect is recorded. Docket record: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70645803/
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 ↗Final order (dismissed without prejudice; case closed)
The court dismissed C051 without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to serve Fenix Internet, adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation over the plaintiff’s objections, and closed the case. The proof of service the plaintiff offered carried the case number of the companion action C052, not this one.
Source — storage.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.
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.
Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
do you want me to do making the only fans so I can rake in thousands of dollars a month that I can use to sue you morons so you can pay me your mediocre paychecks to the rest of your lives
One sentence naming both the platform that becomes a defendant in the tracked DSP005 Fenix/OnlyFans actions (C011, C042, C051, C052) and a prospective intention to sue his critics. Rhetorical in register, but it is a stated plan to litigate funded by a named platform, 1,059 days before the February-2023 account ban those actions plead (2020-03-09 to 2023-02-01, using the 1st because the ban day is not recorded; differenced in code). Possible case/dispute link: ⚠ Not DSP005. The platform matches but the grievance does not: in 2020 he describes opening an account, whereas C011/C042/C051/C052 plead a 2023 ban and refusal to reinstate. Recorded as a dated chronology fact about his relationship to that platform only. The "sue you morons" half links to no tracked case — the targets are unnamed critics.
Source removed. Quoted at 03:45 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.
- They want me GONESource removed
Cite this page
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC (3:25-cv-01165)". Research last verified October 3, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-25-cv-01165-tufano-v-fenix-internet-llc/