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 ↗Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al (7:23-cv-00244)". Research last verified August 21, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/7-23-cv-00244-tufano-v-american-arbitration-association-et-al/