Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
7:23-cv-00244 · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
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.
Frank Tufano, pro se, filed a complaint (and, the next day, an amended complaint) before Judge Vincent L. Briccetti against the American Arbitration Association, arbitrator Sarah Thompson, opposing party Adam Starowicz, and attorney Jeffrey K. Davis, Esq. — the identical four-defendant lineup and caption later reused in a companion Westchester Supreme Court filing (Index No. 50058/2023, tracked separately as C091, filed the day after this federal case was dismissed and opposed by Davis as duplicative of the earlier C090 action).
Six days after filing, the court issued an order to show cause questioning subject-matter jurisdiction; after Tufano's response, the case was dismissed without prejudice on January 31, 2023 under Rule 12(h)(3) before reaching the merits. Given the shared defendant list, timing, and C091's own characterization, this federal filing plausibly sought relief against, or otherwise contested, the ongoing AAA arbitration between Tufano and Starowicz over Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC — but that specific reading is inferred, not confirmed by a direct read of this complaint, which sits behind the PACER paywall.
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Outcome reason: After ordering Tufano to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and receiving his response, the court dismissed the action under Rule 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Research status: Source-backed
Research notes: Defendants were the American Arbitration Association, Jeffrey K. Davis, Esq., Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson. The case was filed two days after Starowicz's Jan. 9, 2023 motion to dismiss C090, according to the Davis Cantor article. A separate New York state action against the same four defendants, C091, was filed Feb. 1, 2023. This is treated as related parallel litigation, not the same action or a post-judgment refiling.
Findings recorded only where they are tied to an order, opinion or report and recommendation.
Record labels distinguish final orders/opinions, reports and recommendations, non-final orders, and tentative/indexed ruling records.
After issuing an order to show cause and receiving Tufano's response, the court dismissed the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to an appropriate state-court action.
January 31, 2023 ruling source — courtlistener.com ↗Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.
Two days after Starowicz reportedly moved to dismiss C090 on arbitration grounds, Tufano filed C099 in S.D.N.Y. against the American Arbitration Association, Jeffrey K. Davis, Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson. The court ordered him to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, then dismissed it without prejudice after his response.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Two days after the reported motion to dismiss C090, Tufano filed C099 in S.D.N.Y. against the American Arbitration Association, Jeffrey K. Davis, Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗The federal court ordered Tufano to show cause why C099 should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗After receiving Tufano's show-cause response, the court dismissed C099 without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗The next day, Tufano filed C091 in Westchester Supreme Court against the same four defendants named in C099: AAA, Jeffrey Davis, Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Commentary from former counsel or other secondary sources is retained separately from court findings and primary-source records.
Davis recounts the Starowicz/Tufano business arbitration, reproduces language from an arbitrator stating that a preliminary hearing occurred Oct. 25, 2021 and that a request to pause/stay was addressed by email around Apr. 5, 2022, and reports that Starowicz filed a motion to dismiss C090 on Jan. 9, 2023. The article later notes the state case was settled and claims voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.
Evidentiary treatment: Use for leads, chronology and quoted arbitration context only. Davis's characterizations (for example that arguments were meritless or that Tufano tried to circumvent arbitration) are not court findings unless independently corroborated.
Secondary source — daviscantor.com ↗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.
my former lawyer jeffrey davis who was jewish was to my understanding in collusion with my business partner adam starwitz probably paul saldino i don't know what type of connections they have you know what the deal is but i'm assuming they were all working together against me and my lawyer basically got me an arbitration without my consent
The collusion allegation stated in full, naming his own former attorney Jeffrey Davis (A001 / D0137) and Adam Starowicz — and recorded 279 days before he sued both of them in C099. Cannot be Strong: the rubric reserves that for the three core filing-conduct factors, and this alleges bias among the actors rather than describing his own filing conduct. ⚠ The allegation carries an explicit religious identification of the attorney, preserved verbatim because it characterises the nature of the claim being made. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed). Jeffrey Davis and Adam Starowicz are both named defendants in C099 and C091; no specific case_id is asserted from this video alone.
Source removed. Quoted at 04:21 in the archived transcript.
listen you [ __ ] can collude with each other all you want i don't know what sort of group you're in i don't know what sort of club you in if you want to work together i'm going to ignore you
His own account of accusing the forum itself of collusion, in a call to its case manager. The [ __ ] bleeps are preserved as captioned. The "club" framing recurs across this batch (compare tasS38BpOPw at 9:33, "they're all in the club") and is the consistent shape of the bias allegation. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed) — the American Arbitration Association is D0019, a named defendant in C099 and C091.
Source removed. Quoted at 06:28 in the archived transcript.
you know Mr starowitz I would say I don't enjoy having to deal with this but one of my viewers was kind enough to make a website in your memory on adamsterowids.com they have the privilege of seeing your Instagram your LinkedIn profile a brief summary of what you did and those two videos you want to take and down oh so badly
The opposing party in a then-live New York action is addressed by name on camera, and the channel publicises a website a viewer built at his name which aggregates his social-media profiles. This is the grievance and the party, not a filing — no court, docket or suit is mentioned. ⚠ Surfaced for later review as ambient harassment amplified by the channel: the action is attributed to a viewer, the channel names the resulting domain to an audience. Possible case/dispute link: C089 / DSP020 — the party is aliases.csv D0003, tracked in C089, C090, C091 and C099. The link here is to the party, not to a case: no case is named.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:54 in the archived 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. American Arbitration Association et al (7:23-cv-00244)". Research last verified October 3, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/7-23-cv-00244-tufano-v-american-arbitration-association-et-al/