Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Case research · C080
Tufano v. BBB
3:26-cv-02132 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Pending; complaint filed and summons issued, no response or order docketedPennsylvania
CourtU.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
FiledJuly 29, 2026
StatusPending; complaint filed and summons issued, no response or order docketed
Outcome—
Final disposition—
JurisdictionPennsylvania
Pro se—
Current / transferee court—
Transferred case—
Last researchedSeptember 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 Better Business Bureau (“BBB”). The docket lists the nature of suit as “Assault Libel & Slander” with a diversity-jurisdiction cause of action for libel, assault, and slander under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, suggesting the claim concerns an allegedly defamatory business rating, complaint listing, or public statement made by or through the BBB regarding Tufano or a business associated with him. No further factual detail from the complaint's text could be independently located.
CourtListener/RECAP confirms the docket coding: the complaint is pleaded in diversity under 28 U.S.C. 1332, nature of suit 320 Assault Libel and Slander, with a jury demand by the plaintiff.
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 (CourtListener/RECAP docket snapshot)
Research notes: Update 2026-08-23: Assigned to Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella. CourtListener/RECAP shows three opening docket entries, all 2026-07-29 (complaint with civil cover sheet, summons issued, pro se letter), and nothing after. Nature of suit 320 Assault Libel and Slander; cause 28:1332 Diversity-Libel/Assault/Slander; jurisdiction Diversity. All seven 2026-07-29 filings (3:26-cv-02132 through 3:26-cv-02138) were fee-paid at $405 under a single shared receipt number 333120943, not filed in forma pauperis, so no 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) screening track applies; they were assigned across five different magistrate judges with no consolidation and no common screening order. RECAP mirrors only what a PACER user has already fetched, so the absence of later entries is not affirmative proof of docket inactivity. No published opinion exists for this case on GovInfo (verified against a working control). Docket record: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73689063/
Update 2026-09-23: Docket metadata confirms the assigned judge as Judge Leo A. Latella. No other change; the docket is unmoved since the last pass.
Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.
ContextNew complaint filed against same core defendant shortly after related case's dismissal on preliminary objections
C080 (M.D. Pa., filed 2026-07-29) names BBB, the same defendant as the just-dismissed C008, 15 days after C008's dismissal on preliminary objections. As of 2026-08-23 the docket is confirmed via CourtListener/RECAP -- Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella, nature of suit 320 Assault Libel and Slander, cause 28:1332, fee-paid at $405 -- with three opening entries and no response or order docketed. The complaint itself remains unavailable, so the direct comparison of C080's claims against C008's has still not been made and must not be asserted.
No adjudication yet; docket-confirmed filing only -- C080's docket, judge and coding are confirmed as of 2026-08-23 but its complaint has not been read.
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
New complaint filed after prior adverse decision
Tufano filed a federal complaint, C080, against BBB, 15 days after C008 was dismissed on preliminary objections. As of 2026-08-23 C080's docket is confirmed (filed 2026-07-29, Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella, nature of suit 320 Assault Libel and Slander, cause 28:1332, fee-paid at $405 rather than in forma pauperis), with three opening entries and no response or order docketed. The complaint itself remains unread, so no direct comparison of C080's claims with C008's has been made.
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.
So I should probably just sue them and get them to waste their — their lawyers' money — well, not waste their lawyers' money, waste their legal fees on — waste their nonprofit money on their lawyer, maybe give him a little bonus this year on his salary.
Frames a contemplated lawsuit against the Better Business Bureau as a means of causing the organization to spend nonprofit funds on legal fees.
Why this classification: Contemplates suing so the nonprofit must spend its money on its lawyer's fees — the cost to the opponent stated as the point of the suit.
It's absurd. It's absurd. They get a local state judge to wipe his ass with my paperwork and throw it out, deny me due process, deny me a jury trial. My case is never heard in the local state court. And when I sue them federally, these jerk-offs say, "Oh, well, he tried to sue us in state court, and he won." Like, what Why Why do I even bother,
This is the speaker narrating the two-step sequence himself: a state court dismissed his case ("a local state judge to wipe his ass with my paperwork and throw it out... My case is never heard in the local state court"), and then he sued the same defendant again, in a different forum ("And when I sue them federally"). That is a new or repeat action following an adverse decision, not the ordinary appellate remedy — the contract's appeal carve-out therefore does not apply here, and both core factors are met on his own words. The dataset records exactly this sequence independently: C008 (Lackawanna County) was dismissed on preliminary objections 2026-07-14, and C080 (M.D. Pa. 3:26-cv-02132) was filed against the same defendant on 2026-07-29 — 15 days later, computed in code from litigation_timeline.csv LT126 and LT128 [AGENT-VERIFIED]. LT128's own event label is "New complaint filed after prior adverse decision," and lawsuits.csv codes C080 refiling_of_prior_case = Yes, previous case = C008, refiling_evidence_strength = Moderate. Strong is available because a specific case pair and dispute can be named.
some of you might have seen the Better Business Bureau video on Saturday we're still dealing with a lot of chargebacks Shadow Bend and censorship
Establishes that a dedicated video about the Better Business Bureau was published on Saturday 2025-01-18 — an internal marker early in the video fixes the weekday. The BBB grievance is tracked: C008 (Tufano v. Better Business Bureau, Lackawanna 2025-03928) was filed 2025-05-27, and its claims summary pleads that the BBB hosted false and malicious reviews and an "F" rating against the meat business. So the grievance was public content 129 days before the complaint. This video only refers to that content; it states none of the grievance itself, and announces no filing.
I sued the Better Business Bureau after they slandered and tried to blackmail my business with false reviews, and that's their real purpose. The Better Business Bureau is owned by a bunch of wealthy, selfish lunatics that take payments from other wealthy, selfish lunatics to promote their evil business and slander legitimate small business. The sole purpose of the Better Business Bureau is to shut down small businesses, and they should not exist.
Opens by confirming, in his own words, that he sued the Better Business Bureau, and states the grievance as slander/defamation by false reviews plus an attempted "blackmail" of his business. The BBB is a tracked defendant (alias Better Business Bureau → D0041, and BBB → D0039, both live in aliases.csv [AGENT-VERIFIED]), and the grievance he describes matches the libel/slander subject matter recorded for both tracked BBB actions. It confirms a past filing but describes no repeat filing, appeal or cost motive on its own, so it does not reach a core factor.
And a judge throwing out a lawsuit of a small business suing them is the ultimate hypocrisy. It's so ironic, it's crazy.
Describes a dismissal of his own suit against the BBB ("a lawsuit of a small business suing them"). C008 was dismissed on preliminary objections on 2026-07-14 by Memorandum and Order, 56 days before this video was published [AGENT-VERIFIED against lawsuits.csv C008 and litigation_timeline.csv LT126; interval computed in code as a plain date difference, 2026-07-14 → 2026-09-08]. He does not name the judge, the court or the case, so the identification rests on the dataset, not on the transcript.
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. BBB (3:26-cv-02132)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-26-cv-02132-tufano-v-bbb/