Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Case research · C075
Tufano v. Small Business Administration et al
3:26-cv-01312 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Pending; complaint filed and summons issued, no return of service, appearance, answer or order docketedPennsylvania
CourtU.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
FiledMay 14, 2026
StatusPending; complaint filed and summons issued, no return of service, appearance, answer or order docketed
Outcome—
Final disposition—
JurisdictionPennsylvania
Pro se—
Current / transferee court—
Transferred case—
Last researchedAugust 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.
Plaintiff sued the Small Business Administration and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The docket lists the nature of suit as “Other Fraud” with a cause of action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. The indexed complaint text states that Tufano “attempted to contact the Small Business Administration by phone, email, and through their website, multiple times,” indicating the claims concern the agencies' handling of, and communications regarding, an SBA-related debt or loan matter.
CourtListener/RECAP and PacerMonitor both confirm the docket coding already on file: nature of suit 370 Torts - Personal Property - Other Fraud, cause 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. No court has passed on whether the FDCPA reaches these federal defendants; no order has issued.
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.
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Research status: Source-backed (PacerMonitor docket snapshot)
Research notes: Update 2026-08-23: Assigned to Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella. Four docket entries, all 2026-05-14/15 (complaint; pro se letter; summons issued as to all defendants, mailed to plaintiff for Rule 4 service), with the $405 filing fee paid 2026-05-15 -- the case is fee-paid, not in forma pauperis, so no 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) screening applies. Nothing further appears on a PacerMonitor docket current through 2026-08-21: no return of service, no appearance by the U.S. Attorney, no answer and no order of any kind in over three months. Nature of suit 370 Torts - Personal Property - Other Fraud; cause 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. No court has passed on whether the FDCPA reaches these federal defendants -- no order has issued. Docket record: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73342875/
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.
this isn't the first time I've had negative experiences with the USDA they've raided my business I've applied to over a dozen different loans and grants I've never gotten one single any help at all
Establishes that as of 2025-01-05 he already characterised his history with the agency as adversarial and multi-episode, and asserts a prior enforcement action against his business. It also introduces a second, separate grievance — refused federal loans and grants — that maps onto a different tracked case. Neither half describes filing conduct. See the dating hazard below: the "raid" he describes here cannot be the USDA site visit recorded in C010's claims summary, which is dated a month after this video. (Tier: Moderate — No filing-conduct factor)
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. Small Business Administration et al (3:26-cv-01312)". Research last verified August 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-26-cv-01312-tufano-v-small-business-administration-et-al/