Default-judgment motion denied without prejudice
After previously ordering Tufano to provide Rule 4 proof of service, the court denied his motion for default judgment without prejudice.
May 21, 2026 ruling source — courtlistener.com ↗Tufano v. Burgess
3:26-cv-00397 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Pending in current docket snapshotDefault-judgment motion denied without prejudice (non-final)Pennsylvania
CourtU.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
FiledFebruary 17, 2026
StatusPending in current docket snapshot
OutcomeDefault-judgment motion denied without prejudice (non-final)
Final dispositionNon-final; later merits/status check needed
JurisdictionPennsylvania
Pro seYes
Current / transferee court—
Transferred case—
Last researchedAugust 9, 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 Frank Tufano, pro se, alleges defamation of character (42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ch. 83), tortious interference with business relationships, and civil conspiracy against Richard Burgess, an online creator known as “Vegan Gains.” He alleges Burgess has for several years produced weekly YouTube videos and livestreams making false and derogatory statements about him and his food business, and encouraged followers to mass-report his content and post hateful comments, causing reputational and business harm.
The complaint requests a temporary restraining order barring Burgess and his followers from speaking about Tufano, and seeks roughly $123,000/year in claimed lost profits (totaling $615,000 for five years of alleged harassment), plus a jury trial.
Defendants
- Burgess
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: Tufano moved for default judgment on Apr. 14, 2026. After an order requiring proof of Rule 4 service and a proof-of-service filing, the court denied the default-judgment motion without prejudice on May 21, 2026.
Research status: Source-backed docket through Aug. 7, 2026
Research notes: The public federal docket is current through Aug. 7, 2026 and shows no later entry after the May 21 denial of default judgment without prejudice.
Court & ruling records
Findings recorded only where they are tied to an order, opinion or report and recommendation.
Record labels distinguish final orders/opinions, reports and recommendations, non-final orders, and tentative/indexed ruling records.
Chronology events
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Default judgment denied without prejudice
The court denied Tufano's default-judgment motion in Burgess without prejudice after previously requiring proof of Rule 4 service.
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.
Dispute background statement¶
daily videos why I'm not doing as many Vlogs it was because um had to be out of commission for a little while but I I did not get beat up by a vegan girl uh to Tomy [unresolved] did not swing her chest at me I I'm completely fine I am I am good to go
The retraction proper, and the reason it is recorded as a quote rather than a note: it is the only thing in the researched material that prevents an earlier comic Short's assault narrative from being taken as a real injury. He denies the beating in terms, denies the specific comic detail, states he is "completely fine", and attributes his absence from daily uploads to being "out of commission" for the surgery instead. Note precisely what is and is not retracted: he retracts the assault, not the blurred vision — which is real, and which another archived video documents at day 14 ("vision is still blurry"). The comic Short borrowed a true symptom for a false cause. The caption's "to Tomy" remains unresolved.
Watch at 00:36 — 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. Burgess (3:26-cv-00397)". Research last verified August 9, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-26-cv-00397-tufano-v-burgess/