Frank Tufano lawsuits involving American Arbitration Association
2 originating actions · 2 docket records
Cases involving American Arbitration Association
American Arbitration Association is named in 2 de-duplicated originating actions in this dataset (2 docket records) across 2 courts filed between January 11, 2023 and February 1, 2023. 2 of the docket records carry a recorded outcome.
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| February 1, 2023 | 50058/2023Frank Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al | New York State Supreme Court | Discontinued |
| January 11, 2023 | 7:23-cv-00244Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al | U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York | Dismissed |
Judges who have ruled in these cases
Listing a judge records who decided a motion or entered an order in a case naming this party. It is not an evaluation of the judge.
Court & ruling records in these cases
Recorded only where tied to an order, opinion or report and recommendation.
Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after show-cause process
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.
What the filings allege
- 50058/2023Plaintiff Frank Tufano, pro se, sued the American Arbitration Association, arbitrator Sarah Thompson, opposing party Adam Starowicz, and attorney Jeffrey K.
- 7:23-cv-00244Frank Tufano, pro se, filed a complaint (and, the next day, an amended complaint) before Judge Vincent L.
These summarise the plaintiff's own allegations as pleaded. They are party filings, not court findings, and no court has adopted them by recording them here. Each links to the full summary on the case page.
Public statements by filing-restriction factor
2 researched statements are linked to cases naming American Arbitration Association and describe filing conduct of a kind the indicator data records, ordered with the factors closest to the filing-restriction criteria first. A factor records what the speaker said — not that a court found it, not an allegation by this project against American Arbitration Association, and not that anyone has been determined a vexatious litigant. Each card links to the video it was transcribed from. Statements whose words describe no filing conduct are not ranked here; they are listed on each case page and on the video's own research page.
What these tiers are: “Strong”, “Moderate” and “Context” are this project’s research classification of how closely a public statement bears on the documented filing-restriction indicators. They are not judicial findings, not an adjudication of anything said in a video, and not a determination that Frank Tufano is a vexatious litigant — no court in this dataset has made that determination. Court findings, party statements and research classifications are kept in separate evidence layers throughout this site; see Methodology.
How a tier is assigned. Strong — the statement names a tracked case or dispute and describes filing conduct of the kind the indicators document: repeat filing on the same dispute, filing after an adverse decision, or filing framed as imposing cost on the opponent. Moderate — it bears on litigation conduct or chronology in a tracked dispute, but the case link is tentative or the statement describes something other than the speaker’s own filing behaviour. Context — general commentary with no specific tracked case identified.
What the factor labels are. Each statement is also labelled with the filing-restriction factor its own words describe, so the reason for a classification is visible rather than implied. Most factors correspond to a criterion recorded in the indicator data, and the three that do not are marked as such there — a filing that has only been threatened has no docket to record, and an allegation about a court is the speaker’s characterisation rather than a recorded criterion. Repeat filing on the same dispute, filing after an adverse decision and cost imposition as stated motive are the three that can qualify a statement as Strong; threatened or prospective filing, self-reported filing volume, filing announced or confirmed, adverse outcome described and judicial or forum bias alleged record related but weaker signals. A statement that describes no filing conduct carries no factor badge. A factor records what the speaker said — not that a court found it, and not that anyone has been determined a vexatious litigant.
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.
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.
Quotations on this page are excerpts: a quotation ending in an ellipsis is shortened here for length. The full wording, and the reason recorded for its pattern-relevance tier, are on the video’s own research page — follow the ¶ permalink on any card.
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.
Legal-system allegation¶
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…
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.
Legal-system allegation¶
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.
Named alongside
Other tracked parties named in the same originating actions.
Related dispute groups
- Starowicz / arbitration / Davis litigationSix docket records from the Frankie's Free Range Meat arbitration dispute, naming Adam Starowicz, the American Arbitration Association and Jeffrey Davis.
This index groups name variants conservatively using the workbook's alias mapping. A repeated defendant does not by itself show that claims were duplicative or meritless.