Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
3:26-cv-00840 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
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.
Same claims as C035’s Verified Complaint (the Lackawanna County original of this removed action): a re-filing of an underlying medical-malpractice dispute against Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Mehryar Ray Taban, MD, alleging California courts discriminated against Tufano’s “Non-Freemasonic” religious beliefs and conspired with Freemason-affiliated judges and defendants to deny him a fair proceeding, and that every Los Angeles malpractice firm he contacted declined to represent him. Named alongside Dr.
Taban and his practice are the State of California, the Medical Board of California, several ophthalmology/cosmetic-surgery associations, the Beverly Hills Masonic Lodge, and law firms Lavely & Singer and KJar McKenna & Stockalper. Pleads an Equal Protection claim under the 14th Amendment among its counts and quotes purported Masonic initiation-oath text in support of its conspiracy theory — noted as pleaded allegation only. Requests a TRO against Lavely & Singer and Dr. Taban barring contact with social-media platforms about Tufano’s business. Adapted from C035’s complaint, not independently re-read on this federal docket.
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Outcome reason: The Apr. 8, 2026 order required Tufano to show cause why the case should not be transferred or dismissed for improper venue and to respond to the ASOPRS dismissal motion. DocketBird also indexes Tufano’s Apr. 20 notice of intent to seek default and the Medical Board’s later dismissal motion. Update 2026-08-21: Case assigned to Judge Phillip J. Caraballo. Docket activity continued through May 28, 2026 with extensive motion-to-dismiss briefing from KJar McKenna & Stockalper LLP and the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, and Tufano’s own brief in opposition to a motion to dismiss (May 28) as the most recent entry. No dismissal or other final disposition found.
Research status: PacerMonitor-verified through May 2026; later docket check may still be needed
Research notes: Same action as C035 after removal. DocketBird's indexed defense exhibits reveal two previously untracked California Superior Court Taban matters: 25SMCV00041 and 25SMCV05503. On May 14, 2026 Tufano also filed a request stating there were 'two identical Federal matters' causing confusion. The California matters are now tracked separately as C101/C102. Citation not re-sourced 2026-08-28: this is the April 8, 2026 improper-venue show-cause order (Doc. 9) in 3:26-cv-00840. DocketBird indexes it, but no free copy is available - CourtListener mirrors only six entries on that docket and not this one, and the order is absent from RECAP, the Internet Archive and GovInfo. The DocketBird link is retained because a docket-level substitute would not show the cited order.
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.
The court ordered Tufano to show cause why the action should not be transferred or dismissed for improper venue and directed him to respond to ASOPRS's dismissal motion; the docket also warned of consequences for failure to brief/respond.
April 8, 2026 ruling source — docketbird.com ↗Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.
On May 14, 2026, Tufano filed a request stating that there were 'two identical Federal matters' causing confusion. The two related matters were not treated here as a refiling after an adverse judgment because the underlying complaints were filed concurrently on Feb. 23, 2026.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
The Lackawanna action was removed to M.D. Pa. as C066.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Both C063 and C066 dockets reflect April 8 show-cause orders concerning improper venue and possible transfer/dismissal.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗The M.D. Pa. court issued show-cause orders addressing improper venue in the parallel Taban-related federal matters.
Source — docketbird.com ↗Tufano filed a request asking whether the removed action would return to state court because there were 'two identical Federal matters' causing confusion.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Federal Notice of Removal identifies Lackawanna 2026-01161.
Federal source — dockets.justia.com ↗Indexed DocketBird material is classified by record type and verification status. Party filings, tentative rulings and unresolved sanctions leads are not treated as court findings.
Order to show cause why the action should not be transferred or dismissed for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. §1406(a); failure to show good cause could result in transfer or dismissal.
Evidentiary treatment: Court-order language; suitable for COURT_FINDINGS as a procedural warning.
Verification: Cross-checked
DocketBird — docketbird.com ↗Cross-check — courtlistener.com ↗Tufano filed a Notice of Intent to File Application for Default.
Evidentiary treatment: Party filing only; not a finding that default was warranted or entered.
Verification: Cross-checked
DocketBird — docketbird.com ↗Cross-check — courtlistener.com ↗Defense filing attaches the complaint in California Superior Court case 25SMCV00041.
Evidentiary treatment: Primary exhibit index establishes existence/case number; new case tracked as C101.
Verification: Source-backed
DocketBird — docketbird.com ↗Cross-check — trellis.law ↗DocketBird indexes an Apr. 2, 2025 minute order on the American Academy of Ophthalmology demurrer in 25SMCV00041.
Evidentiary treatment: Indexed exhibit title is primary evidence that a minute order exists; Rulings.law mirrors the tentative ruling stating the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.
Verification: Partially cross-checked
DocketBird — docketbird.com ↗Cross-check — rulings.law ↗DocketBird indexes a May 7, 2025 ASOPRS minute order in 25SMCV00041.
Evidentiary treatment: Rulings.law mirrors the ruling text granting ASOPRS's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Verification: Partially cross-checked
DocketBird — docketbird.com ↗Cross-check — rulings.law ↗DocketBird indexes a May 7, 2025 Medical Board of California minute order in 25SMCV00041.
Evidentiary treatment: Rulings.law mirrors the ruling text sustaining the Medical Board's demurrer without leave to amend because the complaint did not allege compliance with the Government Claims Act.
Verification: Partially cross-checked
DocketBird — docketbird.com ↗Cross-check — rulings.law ↗Indexed minute order concerns an Order to Show Cause re sanctions on Plaintiff for failure to submit a case-management statement; snippet states there was no appearance by or for Plaintiff.
Evidentiary treatment: Sanctions-related procedural record only. Indexed material does not establish that sanctions were imposed or an amount.
Verification: Resolved - full minute order retrieved and read 2026-08-28
DocketBird — docketbird.com ↗Cross-check — cap.lacourt.ca.gov ↗Defense filing attaches the complaint in California Superior Court case 25SMCV05503.
Evidentiary treatment: Primary exhibit index establishes existence/case number; current Docket Alarm record shows it was filed Oct. 23, 2025 and remains pending. New case tracked as C102.
Verification: Cross-checked
DocketBird — docketbird.com ↗Cross-check — docketalarm.com ↗Defense filing attaches the Mar. 31, 2026 C.D. Cal. vexatious-litigant motion from the transferred Taban case.
Evidentiary treatment: Motion is a party filing, not a vexatious-litigant determination.
Verification: Source-backed motion only
DocketBird — docketbird.com ↗Cross-check — courtlistener.com ↗Medical Board of California filed a motion to dismiss.
Evidentiary treatment: Party motion only; not a disposition.
Verification: Cross-checked
DocketBird — docketbird.com ↗Cross-check — courtlistener.com ↗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.
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.
Watch at 00:06 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗In New York City, we'll probably hand out flyers for the business. And then in Los Angeles, we have different flyers for Dr. Tobon as well as uh flyers for the Hollywood attorney that is doing tordous interference and messing with my life and my business because of what this doctor did to me.
Three things land in one sentence, all dated 2025-06-05. First, the campaign is split by city and by target: commercial flyers in New York for his own business, and in Los Angeles two separate sets — one for the doctor, one for an attorney. Second, "Dr. Tobon" is an auto-caption rendering of Taban — Dr. Mehryar Ray Taban and his practice entities, tracked defendants in C046, C053, C063, C066, C071, C101 and C102. Third, "tordous interference" is tortious interference — the exact cause of action the tracker records for C014/C053. The recorded litigation timeline shows that C014 (Tufano v. TikTok, Lackawanna 2025-04277) was filed 2025-06-06, naming TikTok, TikTok Inc and Lavely & Singer PC — the next day. Announcing a leafleting campaign against a doctor and his lawyer, on a tortious-interference theory, the day before suing that doctor's lawyer on that theory, is a chronology fact worth recording precisely.
Why this classification: Names the two Los Angeles leafleting targets and attaches a tortious-interference theory to them one day before C014 was filed against that doctor's law firm; the conduct he describes is a flyer campaign, so it carries no filing-conduct factor.
Watch at 00:28 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:08 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 01:35 — youtube.com ↗really going after plastic surgeons as a whole and the the legal industry and all these judges
States an intended widening of scope beyond the original defendant to entire professional classes — surgeons, lawyers, judges. The tracked docket already shows this shape (C063/C066 Tufano v. The State of California et al, and C038 against eight Lackawanna judges), so this is a stated intent that the filing record independently corroborates.
Why this classification: Describes widening the effort to plastic surgeons as a class, the legal industry, and the judges.
Watch at 00:36 — youtube.com ↗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. The State of California et al (3:26-cv-00840)". Research last verified August 21, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-26-cv-00840-tufano-v-the-state-of-california-et-al/