Case research · C077

Tufano v. Crispino et al

3:26-cv-02135 · 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 Leo Crispino and Crispino's Refrigerator & Air Conditioning, Inc. The docket lists the nature of suit as “Contract: Other” with a breach-of-contract cause of action. Indexed excerpts of the complaint state that “Crispino's Refrigeration knowingly performed work below the industry standard and mislead Frank Tufano,” and that the company “entered a verbal contract with Frank Tufano to return [] freezer equipment to an operational state” — indicating the claims concern allegedly substandard or incomplete refrigeration/freezer repair performed under an oral agreement.

This 2026 filing was checked against an older, same-surname-defendant Lackawanna County case (2024-06107); no link between them was found, and it reads as a genuinely separate, later dispute.

CourtListener/RECAP confirms the docket coding: nature of suit 190 Contract: Other, cause 28:1330 Breach of Contract, jurisdiction Diversity, jury demand by the plaintiff. The summons was issued to an attorney rather than to the pro se plaintiff, indicating the defendants were already represented. The earlier determination that this is not the same action as C002 (the 2024 Lackawanna filing involving the same defendant surname) was not disturbed by anything found this pass.

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.

Complaint / docket source — courtlistener.com ↗

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 (CourtListener/RECAP docket snapshot)

Research notes: Update 2026-08-23: Assigned to Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo. 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 190 Contract: Other; cause 28:1330 Breach of Contract; 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. The summons was issued to an attorney via U.S. mail rather than to the pro se plaintiff, indicating the Crispino defendants were already represented. 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/73689065/ Update 2026-09-23: Docket metadata confirms the assigned judge as Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo. No other change; the docket is unmoved since the last pass.

Related litigation

Pennsylvania cross-forum relationships

Later federal filing with same Crispino defendantsMedium

Later federal action again names Leo Crispino and Crispino's refrigeration/air-conditioning company.

Same action: No · Yes - verified via direct LPA Prothonotary portal lookup (C002)

Federal source — dockets.justia.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
Moderate pattern relevance00:13

High Fat Ground Beef! Kefir Minerals! HVAC Problems!? Free Range Meat Vlog · June 10, 2024

I guess this is uh a bigger issue this week which has been following me around since I started this business is uh HVAC contractors trying to screw me over which I'm not going to get into uh out of all the trades out of all the people I've had to deal with out of all the services these HVAC guys hold your hostage I don't want to get too much into it but you know when you have a lot of money worth of Frozen product and it's dependent on you getting something fixed they tend to jerk you around a little bit but at this point in time I've learned enough about HVAC systems to know when I'm not getting screwed around it only took me thousands and thousands of dollars

Frames the refrigeration-contractor grievance as continuous since the business started, which is the temporal claim C002 implicitly makes — the claims-summary record includes a Stipulation Against Liens dating the Crispino engagement to December 2022, roughly twenty months before C002 was filed and eighteen before this video. "I don't want to get too much into it" is his own signal that he is withholding detail on camera; he then gives the detail anyway at 13:08.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch at 00:13 — youtube.com ↗
Dispute background statement
Moderate pattern relevance13:08

High Fat Ground Beef! Kefir Minerals! HVAC Problems!? Free Range Meat Vlog · June 10, 2024

yeah so the first HVAC gu that we had was recommended by the previous owner of the building we got like a $40,000 bank loan to get everything set up and I mean he probably took that 40,000 for like and really should have only charged me 15 so he took 25 there that same first guy stole the gas probably stole the gas out of that grocery store rack which which is another $115,000 worth of gas so said sign hour to him didn't make a video on that cuz I didn't really have proof on uh on him stealing the gas

this is the C002 theory of the case, in the speaker's own words, 85 days before the complaint. C002's claims summary pleads that Leo Crispino and Crispino's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Inc. "performed substandard work — overcharging him an estimated $10,559 plus a separate $4,240 bill … and allegedly draining roughly $15,000 of refrigerant from another unit to which only Crispino had access." The quote gives both halves: an overcharge on the initial engagement, and refrigerant stolen from a second unit. The caption's $115,000 is digit-doubled from $15,000 — matching the pleaded figure exactly, and independently corroborated by MZ-rmXFGtgw (2025-08-25, 8:42), where the same allegation is captioned "he steal $15,000 worth of refrigerant." No filing-conduct factor is correct and is itself the point: he expressly says he did NOT act on it — "said sayonara to him, didn't make a video on that cuz I didn't really have proof."

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch at 13:08 — youtube.com ↗
Dispute background statement
Moderate pattern relevance00:00

How my FREEZER BROKE! Evaporators Iced Up · June 22, 2024

so we're going to go up there and show you guys what was wrong with my freezer units so back here you have the coils and you need air flow now normally these go into defrost and automatically melt the ice but my heaters are broken so you can see it building up a little bit now there was about 4 in block of ice on here it was a complete nightmare to get off with torches and deicer

This is a contemporaneous, on-camera record of a commercial freezer failure caused by iced-up evaporator coils and non-functioning defrost heaters, published 73 days before C002 was filed. C002's recorded claims summary alleges that the refrigeration contractor performed substandard work "skipping basic maintenance such as coil cleaning and leak checks … causing mechanical failures that cost him approximately $104,321.77 in emergency freezer repairs and rentals." The coil/defrost failure mode described here is the subject matter of that pleading. It describes damage, not filing conduct, and attributes the failure to nobody. (Tier: Moderate — No filing-conduct factor)

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch / source — youtube.com ↗
Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding
Moderate pattern relevanceThreatened or prospective filing22:04

FREEZER NIGHTMARE! Help by placing an order! Free Range Meat Vlog · June 22, 2024

but okay so we're just going to have to Sue that that uh did the work for us in the first place but by then he might be in Mexico

The load-bearing quote of this video. On 2024-06-22 he announces on camera that he will have to sue the contractor who "did the work for us in the first place"; on 2024-09-03, 73 days later, he filed C002 (Tufano v. Crispino, Lackawanna County, the Crispino dispute) against Leo Crispino and Crispino's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Inc. C002's claims summary pleads that Crispino was "hired to restart and repair a long-dormant commercial walk-in freezer at his business" and "performed substandard work" — and the recorded litigation timeline dates that engagement to a Stipulation Against Liens filed 2022-12-30 between FRM LLC and Crispino's Refrigeration for "Refrigeration/Freezer related repairs." "In the first place" therefore has a documented antecedent: the original December-2022 engagement. The caption drops the noun after "Sue that that" — a person or company word is missing — but the relative clause survives intact and the referent is a contractor, singular and male ("he might be in Mexico").

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch at 22:04 — youtube.com ↗
Dispute background statement
Moderate pattern relevance01:18

Freezer is okay! Potato Chips back! Pastrami! Lemon Sorbet! Fresh Local Beef! Free Range Meat Vlog · June 24, 2024

we're spending uh at least 150 day on the reefer probably 100 in gas leaking out of that thing I am I am bleeding money to say the least and I haven't even uh spent it on the stuff I need to do to fix this freezer so we're in a tight spot

C002 (Tufano v. Crispino, Lackawanna 2024-06107, filed 2024-09-03, part of the Crispino litigation) pleads that the contractor's substandard work caused "mechanical failures that cost him approximately $104,321.77 in emergency freezer repairs and rentals to prevent spoilage of stored product." This quote is that rental being paid for, priced, and described as unaffordable — 71 days before the complaint. The rate here ($150/day + ~$100 gas) disagrees with a sibling video three weeks later ("$200 a day"). Both are recorded, neither adopted.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch at 01:18 — youtube.com ↗
Dispute background statement
Moderate pattern relevance31:10

Freezer is okay! Potato Chips back! Pastrami! Lemon Sorbet! Fresh Local Beef! Free Range Meat Vlog · June 24, 2024

I guess I guess it wouldn't have been I mean what would really happened was I I spent like $15,000 of my own money trying to fix this thing and it got to the point where I have to open up an insurance claim because I can't afford to fix this anymore and then um basically right when I opened the insurance claim is when the other unit failed and uh and and [ __ ] really started going wrong um so we'll see how it works out um I've been paying insurance for 3 years and have never filed one claim so uh it's about as honest as it gets

the load-bearing quote of this slice, and it is load-bearing in two directions.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch at 31:10 — youtube.com ↗
Dispute background statement
Moderate pattern relevance03:42

How much to SPRAY FOAM A FREEZER!? Emergency Update · June 30, 2024

now we're renting two of these which is 100 bucks a day in rental fees probably 100 uh in gas maybe more and then probably I think he charges me for the engine hours too and they're on continuous so I think it's uh it's probably $300 to $400 a day just for renting these so oh and that doesn't include the the fee for getting them here and back is 400 each so it's a lot of money hopefully after all this is hopefully after we solve we resolve all this maybe I send this bill to the insurance company and they'll cover that too

C002 (Tufano v. Crispino, Lackawanna 2024-06107, filed 2024-09-03, the Crispino dispute) pleads that Crispino's substandard refrigeration work caused "mechanical failures that cost him approximately $104,321.77 in emergency freezer repairs and rentals to prevent spoilage of stored product." This quote is the speaker itemising exactly those rentals — two reefer trailers at roughly $300–$400 a day plus $400 each way in delivery, a forklift at $1,000 a month (mentioned at 1:49), and diesel — 65 days before that complaint was filed. It is the damages side of the C002 pleading, narrated as it was being incurred. The No filing-conduct factor classification is correct and deliberate: he describes no filing, no threatened filing and no prior action, and mentions no lawyer or court anywhere in 20 minutes.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch at 03:42 — youtube.com ↗
Dispute background statement
Moderate pattern relevance11:37

Collagen GIVEAWAY! Smoked Brisket! Pastured Duck! LAMB BRAINS!? Free Range Meat Vlog · July 8, 2024

I wish I wasn't wearing shorts cuz the freezer is working really well now it's like 0° and it's like like 90° in sunny outside which means that you know we're good we're kind of good with the freezer now with the new foam and stuff

C002 (Tufano v. Crispino, Lackawanna 2024-06107, filed 2024-09-03, part of the Crispino litigation) pleads that Leo Crispino and Crispino's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning were hired to restart and repair “a long-dormant commercial walk-in freezer” and performed substandard work, causing “approximately $104,321.77 in emergency freezer repairs and rentals to prevent spoilage of stored product.” This video, 57 days before that filing, reports the same walk-in freezer as newly working — “it's like 0°”, “with the new foam and stuff” — and the uploader's own chapter list marks the segment “11:38 - Freezer is WORKING”, which is independent corroboration that the freezer's state was the point of the segment rather than an aside. It fixes the remediation as complete by 2024-07-08. No contractor, company or person is named, and no dispute, claim or lawyer is mentioned. Trade vocabulary does not bridge the video and the docket — terms like spray foam, dry ice, refrigerant and HVAC appear on one side or the other but not both; only the everyday words “freezer” and “spoilage” connect them, and the phrase actually spoken is “the new foam.”

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch at 11:37 — youtube.com ↗
Dispute background statement
Moderate pattern relevance00:12

First the Freezer BROKE! NOW THE FRIDGE!? Free Range Meat Vlog · July 15, 2024

you guys saw we had the freezer issues over the past few weeks still working through the insurance claim for that but now the fridge broke and I haven't slept in like 3 days

places the freezer-failure insurance claim in an open, unresolved state on 2024-07-15, fifty days before C002 (Tufano v. Crispino, Lackawanna 2024-06107) was filed on 2024-09-03. C002's claims summary pleads that the contractor's substandard work caused "mechanical failures that cost him approximately $104,321.77 in emergency freezer repairs and rentals to prevent spoilage of stored product" — this quote is that damages head still accruing. No filing-conduct factor is correct and is the point: an insurance claim is expressly not a lawsuit, and no suit, court, lawyer or contractor is named anywhere in 28 minutes.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch at 00:12 — youtube.com ↗
Dispute background statement
Moderate pattern relevance13:25

Natural Pool Sanitizer! Grass Fed Gelatin! LOST $20,000 WORTH OF WAGYU!? Free Range Meat Vlog · July 21, 2025

Well, I'm going to really what I what what I'm really going to have to do is file an a claim with my insurance company. And they should just call insurance for me just anti-reemason or anti-sec society insurance because the the re only reason my insurance company ever has had to pay me out is because other people have screwed me over and stolen money from me. Whether it's that HVAC guy that ruined all my equipment

An insurance claim is not a court filing — worth stating plainly so it is not mistaken for one. The value is the second half: "that HVAC guy that ruined all my equipment" is a bare-noun reference to the Crispino dispute — Crispino's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Inc and Leo Crispino, a refrigeration and air-conditioning contractor, are defendants in C002 (Lackawanna 2024-06107, filed 2024-09-03, still pending with four unruled default-judgment motions) and C077 (M.D. Pa. 3:26-cv-02135, filed 2026-07-29). No name is spoken, so the link rests on the trade description alone.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch at 13:25 — youtube.com ↗
Dispute background statement
Moderate pattern relevance00:41

Sourdough! Raw Cheese! Fresh Beef! Free Range Meat Vlog · October 7, 2025

Like that refrigeration failure, the insurance company made up some excuse not to pay it. So like they said, "Oh, because it wasn't an equipment failure, the thermostat, it's like some BS they made up so they don't have to pay. But now what do I do? Because is the insurance company going to pull that same BS when I have a bigger issue? Like this was this was 45 I lost $45,000 worth of product that I thought I was going to get back. So that was going to kind of help. And since I haven't got that money now, I'm just I'm behind on all my bills. I can't pay I can't pay some people for food. It's just it's really really bad. So, on top of having the Wagyu stolen from me, $20,000, $25,000 down the drain, on top of the potato chip equipment machinery going bad, on top of, you know, I I paid I'm paying per month on that refrigeration. It's just a disaster.

The most substantively useful passage in this slice. In under a minute he states four separate grievances with figures attached, and — crucially — he quotes the insurer's stated ground for denial: that the loss "wasn't an equipment failure, the thermostat". That is a claims-handling fact stated by the claimant on camera, six weeks before any insurer suit appears in the tracker. Note the embedded quotation: the phrase beginning "Oh, because it wasn't an equipment failure" is him voicing the insurer, not his own assertion, and the caption never closes the quotation mark. Do not lift it flat as his own statement. It also links three grievances in one breath that appear separately elsewhere in this slice: the refrigeration loss, the wagyu ($20–25k), and the potato-chip machinery.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch at 00:41 — youtube.com ↗
Dispute background statement
Moderate pattern relevance00:00

$30,000 of STOLEN R22 RUINED MY CHANCE AT A GROCERY STORE · February 4, 2026

As much as I would have liked to have a storefront here and an organic grocery store, the first HVAC guy that I hired really screwed me over, he stole like $30,000 worth of R22 refrigerant out of the whole refrigeration system. So, you know, it wasn't worth filling it back up to try to run that old equipment.

A first-person account of the alleged refrigerant theft behind the tracked refrigeration dispute, with a dollar figure and a stated consequential loss, an abandoned organic grocery storefront. The transcript names no person, company, court or case.

Why this classification: Damages and dispute background rather than filing conduct, and the link to the tracked contractor cases rests on subject matter alone, which holds the tier at Moderate.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch / source — youtube.com ↗
Dispute background statement
Moderate pattern relevance00:16

$30,000 of STOLEN R22 RUINED MY CHANCE AT A GROCERY STORE · February 4, 2026

And when we ended up going through all of that old stuff that was here, it hadn't been cleaned in like 30 years. And it was arguably like scrap, you know, because it wasn't sanitary. It wasn't hygienic. And and I mean, now that I'm thinking, "Oh, maybe we could have cleaned it." But at the time, I was like, "Get rid of this garbage. It's horrible. It's never been cleaned." I mean, could we have cleaned it up and done all of that? Maybe. But the bigger problem is running that big refrigeration system would have probably costed me another three four $5,000 a month in electricity, which would have definitely not been worth it.

In the same passage he gives two reasons unconnected to the contractor for abandoning the equipment: that it had not been cleaned in about 30 years and was effectively scrap, and that running it would have cost several thousand dollars a month in electricity. Recorded as what the speaker said, not as any assessment of the claim.

Why this classification: Speaks to causation and quantum in a tracked dispute without describing any filing and without naming a party or case, so it stays at Moderate.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch at 00:16 — youtube.com ↗
Dispute background statement
Moderate pattern relevance01:29

FRESH PRODUCE IN! New Fish Products! Breakfast Sausage! Candy!? FREE RANGE MEAT VLOG!!! · February 4, 2026

thing. And mainly because all these people are screwing me and taking advantage of me, I have, you know, imagine if imagine if my Wagu wasn't stolen. Imagine if the potato chip equipment wasn't malfunctioning. Imagine if the refrigeration guys didn't screw me. Imag I've had hundreds of thousands of dollars stolen from me.

he enumerates, in one breath, three specific grievances and totals them at "hundreds of thousands of dollars". Two of the three map onto tracked disputes and the third appears nowhere in the dataset. This is the clearest statement in the slice of the underlying-grievance inventory that the tracked filings draw on. It describes losses, not filing conduct, hence the factor.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Watch at 01:29 — 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. Crispino et al (3:26-cv-02135)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-26-cv-02135-tufano-v-crispino-et-al/