Tufano v. Harding et al
3:26-cv-02715 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
About this case
Not summarized: The complaint in this case could not be obtained from a free public source, so this page does not describe what it alleges. What follows records why the summary is missing, not what was filed.
No claims summary can be written for this case. The docket codes it as an assault, libel and slander action brought under the federal courts' diversity jurisdiction, but no pleading or order reciting the underlying facts has issued. The complaint is held on PACER and is absent from the free RECAP archive, which carries the docket header for this case and nothing else -- no documents and no entry list, which is what a docket looks like on the day the case is filed. Everything recorded here is the court's own docket coding and the party list, not the complaint's own text.
Until the complaint becomes available through RECAP, or a first opinion or report and recommendation recites the claims, this case is coded as an unclear rather than a confirmed repeat filing -- its claims cannot be compared with those of the two pending actions it shares defendants with.
This filing also settles a question left open in this project's video research archive. That archive had recorded Atrakt as a brand name with no matching party anywhere in this dataset, while the company described as selling under it, Ascend Labs Enterprises LLC, was already a defendant in the July 2026 action. Atrakt is now a named defendant in its own right and is recorded as its own party. It is deliberately not merged with Ascend Labs Enterprises LLC: the brand relationship is recorded in the research archive, but nothing on this docket establishes the corporate one, and no document has been read that would.
Defendants
- Erik Harding
- Lance Baker
- Atrakt
- Based Bodyworks LLC
- ByteDance Ltd
- Kareem Shami
- TikTok 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 docket metadata only (CourtListener docket 74807913 and the PacerMonitor party list, both read 2026-09-17). CourtListener holds the docket shell with zero RECAP documents and no party or entry blocks; the complaint was not read.
Research notes: Discovered 2026-09-17 from a case link supplied by the user, and confirmed as absent from the tracker by a nationwide search of the free federal docket archive, with no court filter, for anything filed since September 1, 2026. Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo already appears in this dataset on five other cases. Four of the seven defendants were already tracked parties before this filing: Kareem Shami, named in the July 2026 action 3:26-cv-02133; and Based Bodyworks and TikTok Inc., named in the action removed to federal court as 3:26-cv-00835. The caption's 'Bytedance Ltd' is recorded as a separate party from the ByteDance Inc named in earlier cases, because the two are different legal entities and nothing on this record establishes they are the same company. The seven party names are taken from a commercial docket mirror's party list; CourtListener is cited as this page's docket source because that mirror is behind a sign-in wall readers cannot pass.
Related litigation
- Previous related case: 3:26-cv-02133 — Tufano v. Hiraeth et al
- Dispute group: Shami / Ascend Labs (Atrakt) litigation
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. Harding et al (3:26-cv-02715)". Research last verified September 17, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-26-cv-02715-tufano-v-harding-et-al/