Later federal filing with same Crispino defendantsMedium
Later federal action again names Leo Crispino and Crispino's refrigeration/air-conditioning company.
Federal source — dockets.justia.com ↗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.
Defendants
- Leo Crispino
- Crispino's Refrigerator & Air Conditoning Inc.
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) Update 2026-10-11: the free federal mirror of this docket was last written within minutes of the July 29, 2026 filing and has not been updated since. The absence of later entries therefore records the state of the mirror, not the state of the docket; a case filed the same day is known to have later entries that the mirror does not show.
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
- Dispute group: Crispino litigation
Pennsylvania cross-forum relationships
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.
These quotations can no longer be checked at their source. Every quotation on this site was transcribed from the speaker’s own YouTube channel. That channel was removed in October 2026; on 23 October 2026 all 980 catalogued video ids returned “not found”, and the channel address itself no longer resolves. YouTube’s own basis for removing it is not part of any record this project can verify, so none is asserted here. Nothing was withdrawn by this project.
What survives is the evidence, not the link. The verbatim caption transcript each quotation was read from was archived, dated, at the time the video was catalogued, and the timestamp on each card is the moment in that transcript where the words appear. The transcripts are held unaltered and are not republished. What a reader can no longer do is open the original and hear it, and nothing on this site can restore that. Seventy-four statements — those whose own words name a core filing-restriction factor — survive as clips in this project’s own compilation, and those cards link into it at the right moment. Nothing else is re-hosted. See Methodology.
Dispute background statement¶
but everything's working originally the freezer wasn't up and running and a lot of the HVAC stuff didn't work I ended up getting about a forty thousand dollar loan from the bank to get everything fixed in here uh the electrical and the the freezer stuff
This is his own on-camera description of the condition of the building's refrigeration and electrical systems roughly six months after the December 2022 engagements and roughly fourteen months before C002 was filed (2024-09-03). Three things line up with recorded instruments already in the dataset, and the alignment was found in the transcript, not in the title. (1) "the freezer wasn't up and running" corresponds to C002's pleaded premise of "a long-dormant commercial walk-in freezer" that a contractor was hired to restart. (2) He names two categories of work funded — "the electrical and the the freezer stuff" — and research_notes.csv C103 records exactly two Stipulations Against Liens filed by FRM LLC on 2022-12-30: 2022-30178 with Wallis Electric Construction Co. for "Electrical repairs to equipment located in a Commercial Building", and 2022-30179 with Crispino's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning for "Refrigeration/Freezer related repairs". (3) He says the money came as "a loan from the bank", and DSP021 dates the Fidelity Bank commercial mortgage on the same premises to 2022-12-29, the day before both stipulations were recorded. He names no bank, no contractor and no electrician. The "forty thousand dollar" figure is a spoken number and is not corroborated by any document in the dataset — see the research notes archived for this video. Possible case/dispute link: DSP012 / C002 and C077 (Crispino refrigeration), and DSP021 / C103 (Fidelity Bank mortgage on 25-31 Dundaff Street) — all tentative and unconfirmed; the link rests on subject matter and date, not on any name spoken.
Source removed. Quoted at 10:21 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
that HVAC guy that said the compressor blue I got another guy to look at it and I thought you might have been telling me the truth but the um there was just a leaky valve and literally no gas in it so I feel like if he was telling the truth he would have told me that there was no gas in the whole thing so now I got a new HVAC guy well see I got to stop getting jerked around at some point right but I've been a gentleman about it I haven't gone too crazy yet
This is an HVAC-contractor grievance at the business, narrated 2023-08-16, and two things about it are load-bearing for the DSP012 / C002 / C077 chronology. First, the date: the earliest video the dataset currently carries on the DSP012 refrigeration-contractor dispute is XCkjYKmR2Os, published 2024-06-10. This one is 299 days earlier (2023-08-16 → 2024-06-10, computed as a date difference), and 384 days before C002 was filed (2023-08-16 → 2024-09-03). Second, the substance: the later DSP012 statements (VS469, VS1132, VS1293) all turn on refrigerant being absent from the building's refrigeration system, framed by then as theft of R22 by "the first HVAC guy". Here, at the earliest point, the same physical fact is stated with no theft framing at all — "there was just a leaky valve and literally no gas in it" — and the complaint is only that the first contractor misrepresented the fault as a blown compressor. He does not say the gas was stolen, does not name anyone, and describes no filing, threat or demand. The framing escalation from "he lied about the diagnosis" (2023) to "he stole $30,000 of R22" (2024–2026) is visible only because this video dates the earlier version. The closing "I've been a gentleman about it I haven't gone too crazy yet" is restraint language, not an announced or prospective filing, so the factor is No filing-conduct factor and not Threatened or prospective filing. Possible case/dispute link: DSP012 (C002 Tufano v. Crispino, Lackawanna, filed 2024-09-03; C077 Tufano v. Crispino et al, M.D. Pa., filed 2026-07-29) — tentative, LOW confidence, unconfirmed. The grievance domain matches exactly (an HVAC/refrigeration contractor at the same business, a diagnosis dispute, a replacement contractor hired) and the "no gas in the whole thing" detail matches DSP012's pleaded refrigerant grievance. But no party is named anywhere in this transcript — not Crispino, not any company — and the pleaded particulars of C002 that are recorded in the dataset (a ~$40,000 bank loan, an overcharged invoice, restoration of dormant refrigeration equipment under an oral agreement) are entirely absent here. Read the direction traps: this could equally be a third contractor. Recorded as a candidate adjacency for a later pass to confirm against the C002 complaint, not as a party link.
Source removed. Quoted at 10:55 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
some type of water leak in the freezer so there was like I don't know good amount of ice on the floor my guys filled up like three garbage bins with high so I don't know what's up with that
C002 (Tufano v. Crispino, Lackawanna 2024-06107, filed 2024-09-03, 344 days after this video was published) pleads that Leo Crispino and Crispino's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Inc., hired to restart and repair "a long-dormant commercial walk-in freezer" at this business, performed substandard work causing mechanical failures and roughly $104,321.77 in emergency freezer repairs and rentals. The engagement is dated to December 2022 by a Stipulation Against Liens recorded in the Lackawanna General Index (2022-30179) naming the premises as 25-31 Dundaff Street, Carbondale. This segment reports the same commercial freezer malfunctioning — a water leak and enough ice on the floor to fill three garbage bins — nine months into that engagement and eleven months before the suit. No contractor, company or person is named, and the word refrigerant (which the complaint turns on) does not appear anywhere in this track. Possible case/dispute link: DSP012 / C002 (and its federal companion C077) — tentative, unconfirmed; the party is left open because the transcript names nobody.
Source removed. Quoted at 21:52 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
just like that H just like that HVAC guy that apparently took $20,000 worth of gas out of the out of that machine I I find it so hard to believe that HV guy would do all that work for me then come in here with a bunch of tanks and and steal that gas out like a Bandit
This is the refrigerant-draining allegation later pleaded in C002 (Tufano v. Crispino, Lackawanna 2024-06107), whose claims summary records that Leo Crispino and Crispino's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Inc. allegedly drained "roughly $15,000 of refrigerant from another unit to which only Crispino had access." This video was published 330 days before C002 was filed (2023-10-09 to 2024-09-03, computed as a date difference), and the underlying engagement is dated to December 2022 by a Stipulation Against Liens recorded in the Lackawanna General Index. ⚠ The two figures disagree: $20,000 on camera against roughly $15,000 as pleaded. Both are recorded; neither is reconciled here, and on-camera numbers are the least reliable content in this archive. He also says "apparently" and "I find it so hard to believe", so the statement is hedged rather than asserted. No contractor is named in this transcript, so the identification rests on the grievance, not on a party name. Possible case/dispute link: C002 / C077 (DSP012, Crispino litigation) — tentative, unconfirmed.
Source removed. Quoted at 35:57 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
what happened was one night in that freezer the temperature got too hot to like 95 and then the sauerkraut was maybe in there a little too long
A dated, first-person report that a freezer at his commercial facility failed to hold temperature, reaching "like 95." C002 (Tufano v. Crispino, Lackawanna County 2024-06107, filed 2024-09-03) and its later federal companion C077 (M.D. Pa. 3:26-cv-02135, filed 2026-07-29) — both in dispute group DSP012 — plead that Leo Crispino and Crispino's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Inc., engaged to "return [] freezer equipment to an operational state" at his Carbondale premises, performed substandard work causing mechanical failures. C002's own research notes date that engagement to December 2022 via a Stipulation Against Liens, so October 2023 falls inside the engagement window. Published 2023-10-30 → C002 filed 2024-09-03 is 309 days, computed in code with both dates stated. The value of the quote is that it is a dated equipment-failure datapoint in the window, recorded before any docket existed — it is not evidence that a failure of the kind later pleaded occurred. Possible case/dispute link: C002 / C077 (DSP012) — tentative, unconfirmed, and the party is left open. ⚠⚠ Three reasons a promotion pass must not harden this. (1) No party is named — no contractor, no company, no repair, no bill and no blame is mentioned anywhere near it; he attributes the problem to his own process and says "we'll have to mess around with the sauerkraut recipe." (2) It is not clear this is the same unit. He is using this freezer as a fermentation chamber, which suggests a dormant unit, while elsewhere in the same video a working freezer is in use ("my guys are in the freezer packing up orders" at [27:03]). (3) ⚠ The figure contradicts itself across the video — see the research notes archived for this video.
Source removed. Quoted at 05:46 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
I was complaining like a few Vlogs ago about how I'm spending like 5,000 a month in HVAC work in this building it's make it I haven't made any money since moving into this building because these freezer units are costing me a fortune
A dated, self-reported running cost for refrigeration work at the commercial building. C002 (Tufano v. Crispino, Lackawanna 2024-06107, filed 2024-09-03) pleads that Crispino's substandard work on a long-dormant commercial walk-in freezer caused roughly $104,321.77 in emergency repairs and rentals; a Stipulation Against Liens recorded in the Lackawanna General Index dates the Crispino engagement to December 2022 for a commercial building at 25-31 Dundaff Street, Carbondale. This video was published 288 days before C002 was filed (2023-11-20 to 2024-09-03, computed as a date difference) and describes the freezer-cost grievance as already running. It names no contractor, so the link rests on the subject matter and the building, not on a party name. Possible case/dispute link: C002 / C077 (DSP012, Crispino litigation) — tentative, unconfirmed; no contractor is named in the transcript.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:06 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:13 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
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."
Source removed. Quoted at 13:08 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
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)
Source removed.
Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
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").
Source removed. Quoted at 22:04 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:18 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 31:10 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 03:42 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
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.”
Source removed. Quoted at 11:37 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:12 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 13:25 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:41 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
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.
Source removed.
Dispute background statement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:16 in the archived transcript.
Dispute background statement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:29 in the archived transcript.
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.
- FRESH PRODUCE IN! New Fish Products! Breakfast Sausage! Candy!? FREE RANGE MEAT VLOG!!!Source removed
- $30,000 of STOLEN R22 RUINED MY CHANCE AT A GROCERY STORESource removed
- Sourdough! Raw Cheese! Fresh Beef! Free Range Meat VlogSource removed
- Natural Pool Sanitizer! Grass Fed Gelatin! LOST $20,000 WORTH OF WAGYU!? Free Range Meat VlogSource removed
- First the Freezer BROKE! NOW THE FRIDGE!? Free Range Meat VlogSource removed
- Collagen GIVEAWAY! Smoked Brisket! Pastured Duck! LAMB BRAINS!? Free Range Meat VlogSource removed
- How much to SPRAY FOAM A FREEZER!? Emergency UpdateSource removed
- Freezer is okay! Potato Chips back! Pastrami! Lemon Sorbet! Fresh Local Beef! Free Range Meat VlogSource removed
- FREEZER NIGHTMARE! Help by placing an order! Free Range Meat VlogSource removed
- How my FREEZER BROKE! Evaporators Iced UpSource removed
- High Fat Ground Beef! Kefir Minerals! HVAC Problems!? Free Range Meat VlogSource removed
- Free Range Meat Weekly #9 FREE RAW BUTTER! Soups back! Sauerkraut & Pickles!Source removed
- Free Range Meat Weekly #6 PEMMICAN BACK, Granola Bars, Giardiniera!Source removed
- Free Range Meat Weekly #3 SCAMMED $5,000!? Natural Collagen!Source removed
- Free Range Meat Weekly #1 NEW STUFF! HOMELESS GUY!?Source removed
- Collagen Sausage! Iberico! Pemmican back!Source removed
- NEW BUILDING TOUR!!! Frankie's Meat HQSource removed
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/