Frank Tufano lawsuits involving American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
5 originating actions · 5 docket records
Cases involving American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery is named in 5 de-duplicated originating actions in this dataset (5 docket records) across 2 courts filed between January 2, 2025 and April 2, 2026. 5 of the docket records carry a recorded outcome.
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 2, 2026 | 3:26-cv-00840Tufano v. The State of California et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Venue show-cause order; dismissal motions pending (non-final) |
| February 23, 2026 | 3:26-cv-00447Tufano v. The State of California et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Venue show-cause order; dismissal motions pending (non-final) |
| October 23, 2025 | 25SMCV05503Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al. | Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County | Complaint dismissed without prejudice as an OSC sanction (failure to appear / failure to file case-management statement / failure to file proof of service); ASOPRS motion to quash previously granted |
| January 6, 2025 | 25SMCV00041Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al. | Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County | Disposed at trial court; multiple defendant-specific demurrers/motion to quash granted without leave to amend; plaintiff's post-judgment motions and appeals unsuccessful |
| January 2, 2025 | 3:25-cv-00011Tufano v. Taban et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Sua sponte summary judgment for Defendant; temporary dismissal without prejudice |
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.
Improper-venue / response show-cause order
The court ordered Tufano to show cause why the action should not be transferred or dismissed for improper venue and directed him to respond to ASOPRS's dismissal motion; the docket also warned of consequences for failure to brief/respond.
Improper-venue show-cause order
The court ordered Tufano to show cause by Apr. 30 why the action should not be transferred or dismissed for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. §1406(a), warning that failure to show good cause could result in transfer or dismissal.
Indexed July 8 ruling — ASOPRS service quash / vexatious request not adjudicated
An indexed July 8 ruling states the court granted ASOPRS's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. Although ASOPRS also argued that Tufano had become a vexatious litigant, the ruling states that issue was beyond the scope of the motion to…
Dismissal (OSC sanction)
At a case-management/order-to-show-cause hearing, with no appearance by or for Tufano, no case-management statement filed, and no proof of service on defendants, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice as a sanction: "No cause having been shown,…
Statement of disqualification stricken
The Aug. 19, 2026 minute order, read in full, records that an "Order Striking Statement of Disqualification; Verified Answer was signed and filed prior to this morning's hearing." The court's published document list separately shows an Order dated Aug. 18,…
Reconsideration denied (CCP 1008)
Minute order read in full (marked Page 1 of 1). Plaintiff appeared pro se by remote appearance; there were no appearances for defendants. The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Frank Tufano on 07/27/2026, stating that the motion "is Denied…
Mirrored tentative ruling / indexed minute-order record — AAO demurrer
DocketBird indexes an Apr. 2 minute order concerning the AAO demurrer. Separately, a mirrored tentative ruling states the court would sustain the American Academy of Ophthalmology's demurrer without leave to amend because the allegations did not establish a…
Mirrored tentative ruling / indexed minute-order record — ASOPRS service quash
DocketBird indexes a May 7 minute order concerning ASOPRS. Separately, a mirrored tentative ruling states the court would grant ASOPRS's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. The final minute-order body has not been independently…
Mirrored tentative ruling / indexed minute-order record — Medical Board demurrer
DocketBird indexes a May 7 minute order concerning the Medical Board. Separately, a mirrored tentative ruling states the court would sustain the Medical Board's demurrer without leave to amend because the complaint did not allege compliance with the…
Dismissal (OSC sanction)
Minute order read in full (marked Page 1 of 1). At the combined case management conference and order to show cause re sanctions there was no appearance by or for Plaintiff and no communication with the Court explaining the absence. The Court recorded that…
Remote appearance granted / camera refusal
The order states that shortly before the July 6 pretrial conference Plaintiff requested to appear remotely and the Court granted the request. During the hearing, Plaintiff refused to turn on his camera and cited severe, uncorroborated health issues.
Motion to disqualify denied
The court denied Plaintiff's motion to disqualify. It found that its comments at the pretrial conference reflected an observed inconsistency in Plaintiff's explanation for refusing to appear by camera and did not establish bias or a disqualifying stake or…
Rule 37 expert exclusion / bad-faith and credibility findings
Plaintiff did not serve the required Rule 26(a)(2)(C) expert disclosures. The court found the failure was not substantially justified or harmless and excluded expert testimony. It cited prejudice and trial disruption, failure to provide medical records or…
Medical-malpractice summary judgment / expert testimony required
The court held that expert testimony was required to establish breach and causation, that the common-knowledge exception did not apply to the alleged injury from highly invasive eye surgery, and that without admissible expert testimony Plaintiff could not…
Conditional dismissal / 60-day expert-disclosure cure
Although summary judgment was granted for Defendant, the judgment and dismissal were made temporarily without prejudice because of the procedural nature of the ruling. Plaintiff was given 60 days to prepare and serve expert disclosures; if he cannot…
What the filings allege
- 3:26-cv-00840Same claims as C035’s Verified Complaint (the Lackawanna County original of this removed action): a re-filing of an underlying medical-malpractice dispute against Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Mehryar Ray Taban, MD, alleging California courts discriminated against Tufano’s “Non-Freemasonic” religious beliefs and conspired with Freemason-affiliated judges and defendants to deny him a fair proceeding, and that every Los Angeles malpractice firm he contacted declined to represent him.
- 3:26-cv-00447Plaintiff Frank Tufano, pro se, alleges medical malpractice and related tort claims against Beverly Hills ophthalmic surgeon Dr.
- 25SMCV05503Filed roughly nine months after an earlier suit against the same doctor (tracked as C101), plaintiff's second complaint again alleges a professional-negligence claim from the same November 2023 cosmetic-eye procedure, stating that Taban's surgery left him “deformed” and “near blind.” It again names Taban, his practice (Mehryar Taban MD Inc.), the Medical Board of California, and the same three professional/regulatory associations, and additionally names two law firms — Lavely & Singer PC and Kjar, McKenna & Stockalper LLP — not named as defendants in the first action.
- 25SMCV00041Plaintiff alleges a professional-negligence claim against oculoplastic surgeon Dr.
- 3:25-cv-00011Plaintiff alleges medical malpractice against Dr.
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
52 researched statements are linked to cases naming American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 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 Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 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.
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.
Prospective repeated filing / cost imposition¶
Otherwise, we'll just file another lawsuit stating the simple facts of the conspiracy just to continue to expose how crooked this system is. And as I've stated before, I never expected to win these lawsuits.
States in one sentence that a further filing will follow, that its purpose is to continue to expose the system rather than to obtain relief, and that he never expected to win these actions.
Watch at 00:45 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
Let it be on record that this is the third time I am submitting my subpoena request to the central district of California in my case against Dr. Tobant [auto-caption; "Taban"].
Identifies the case specifically — the Taban matter in the Central District of California, which matches C046 (filed M.D. Pa. as 3:25-cv-00011 and since transferred; the case tracker records its status as "Closed / conditional 60-day cure window in C.D. California"). It also dates a third attempt at the same discovery request, which is a checkable docket fact.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
So, it took like an hour to see the judge, but uh this Tabon State Court case is kind of being a pain because the judge is obviously working in favor of the doctor and I have a case active in federal court that actually takes…
The strongest of the statements researched from this video, and its only Strong-tier candidate. Both Strong conditions are met on the transcript alone. 1. It names a tracked dispute. “Tabon” is one of the documented caption misspellings of Taban and corrects at a single letter. “This Tabon State Court case” is C101 Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al. (Superior Court of California, LA County, 25SMCV00041, filed 2025-01-06, then live); “a case active in federal court … against him” is C046 Tufano v. Taban et al, opened in the Central District of California on 2025-01-03 and then live. Both belong to the Taban eye-surgery dispute group. 2. It describes core filing conduct. He states, as a present fact about his own litigation, that he is maintaining two concurrent actions on the same grievance against the same defendant in two forums, and reasons about which to prosecute first. That is Repeat filing on the same dispute in the speaker's own words — the exact conduct the dataset's recorded chronology for this dispute describes as the California/Taban concurrent duplicate sequence. A more conservative reading would hold that describing an existing posture is Filing announced or confirmed (not a core factor) and classify this as Moderate, on the ground that he narrates duplication rather than announcing a new filing; the Strong classification rests on the sentence treating the two cases as alternative routes to the same relief against the same person, which is the substance the core factor is meant to capture. The prospective motion to stay is a separate, non-core element and is deliberately not stacked into the factor list. A tier and a factor are research classifications of what the speaker said — not a judicial finding, and not a vexatious-litigant determination.
Watch at 02:48 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
This is the This is Dr. Tobant getting my Tik Tok taken down. This is uh Shopify getting transferred to federal court. This is the guy that sold me all the broken restaurant equipment. There's like three different Tabon cases.
He states, in his own words and in the present tense, that he is running three concurrent actions against the same defendant on the same grievance. That is the repeat-filing core factor stated by the speaker rather than inferred by a researcher, and the defendant is a tracked party (Dr. Taban, in the Taban eye-surgery dispute group). The count checks out against the tracked record: as of 2025-08-06, C046 (M.D. Pa., filed 2025-01-02), C101 (LA Superior, filed 2025-01-06) and C053 (M.D. Pa., filed 2025-06-27 — the TikTok removal, in which Taban and Mehryar Taban MD Inc are named defendants) were all live. He also names the TikTok takedown and the Shopify removal in the same breath, tying two more tracked matters to the same account. One classification caveat, stated for transparency: the tier rests on a caption correction. The auto-captions render the name as “Tobant” and “Tabon”, spellings that match no tracked party; only the correction to Taban identifies the defendant, and a reader who declines to rest a tier on a corrected proper noun would read this as Moderate. The Strong classification stands because the same video’s captions render “Dr. Taban” correctly at 17:22 and the video’s own description spells “Dr. Taban” correctly four times, so the party’s identity is not in genuine doubt.
Watch at 20:21 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
How about you issue a restraining order against Dr. Taban to anyone that walks in his office so he doesn't disfigure their face and make them half blind like he did to me. I mean, that's that's my idea. But the reason I think he did this…
He states an exact filing date for a proceeding he commenced — June 6, 2025 — against a tracked defendant on a dispute already in litigation. As of that date, C046 (M.D. Pa., filed 2025-01-02) and C101 (LA Superior, filed 2025-01-06) were both live against Taban and his practice. A separate restraining-order petition against the same party over the same underlying grievance is Repeat filing on the same dispute — the core factor — stated by the speaker in his own words, with a date, about a tracked dispute.
Watch at 00:32 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
So, this is a third party complaint and a temporary restraining order. What this is going to do, it's going to add those lawyers as defendants to the current to bond case because this is torchious interference.
Describes a second, distinct filing — a third-party complaint plus TRO request adding the law firm to the existing Taban case rather than starting a new one. This
Watch at 01:38 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
all we can do now is file a conspiracy case against the entire California State Bar Association and the California Legal System because no attorney in the entire state of California will represent me.
Announces a contemplated conspiracy action against the state bar association and legal system, on the stated ground that no attorney in the state will represent him. It was published four days after the order in the tracked medical action.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
You can't in America either, dude. They own the court system. I have to sue the state of California because a corrupt judge dismissed my lawsuit in the California state court. I didn't even get it to trial. They just throw the case out.
He states that a corrupt judge dismissed his lawsuit in the California state court before it reached trial, and that he therefore has to sue the State of California. He gives no docket number, so which tracked action he means is not established. The hypothetical objection voiced immediately before these words is one he is rebutting, not his own position, and a clip started at the deep link will include it.
Watch at 00:06 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
really going after plastic surgeons as a whole and the the legal industry and all these judges
States an intended widening of scope beyond the original defendant to entire professional classes — surgeons, lawyers, judges. The tracked docket already shows this shape (C063/C066 Tufano v. The State of California et al, and C038 against eight Lackawanna judges), so this is a stated intent that the filing record independently corroborates.
Watch at 00:36 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
So technically under the current circumstances, I am being denied due process and the court cannot allow me a fair trial. So I mean we're just going to appeal the current case and see if we could take it as high as possible to the Supreme…
States an intention to appeal the current case as far as possible, framed as a response to being denied due process.
Watch at 00:30 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement / stated motive¶
I don't know whether the judge just chose to ignore my filings, whether he did not legitimately see the filings, but I'm going to submit a notice of appeal.
A public allegation of judicial disregard of filings, stated as uncertainty rather than as established fact (“I don't know whether”), paired with an announced appeal. The same “judge is ignoring my filings” theory appears in the videos “California Judge IGNORES HALD BLIND PRO SE LITIGANT” and “California Judge ABUSES BLIND PATIENT to Defend Doctor” about the same California proceeding — cross-video repetition of an allegation, not corroboration of it.
Watch at 00:33 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
So now I'm adding Dr. to Bond's lawyer as part of the case as a third party for torsious interference for ruining my life because now I can no longer get uh medical treatment from the most qualified doctor in the United [States]
A first-person statement of intended litigation conduct that names the intended target, the surgeon's lawyer, the vehicle, joinder as a third party to an existing case, and the cause of action, tortious interference. That is unusually specific for this channel.
Watch at 00:40 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
And you guys can look up tortious interference. Basically, if a law firm or someone attempts to ruin someone's life and damage their business because of a lawsuit, they're going to lose the lawsuit really severely. So, as soon as I file…
An explicit prospective filing — "as soon as I file this in the courts" — naming the claim he intends to bring. The prediction that follows is that he will win, not that the court is biased, so no forum-bias factor is applied. See the date analysis in Research Notes: this publishes one day before a matching filing hits the Lackawanna docket, and that adjacency is recorded with both readings rather than asserted.
Watch at 00:37 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
I haven't added this to the lawsuit but I'm going to have to because his neglect his misconduct his lack of post-operative care the lying the deceit has caused even more damage in not getting me the correct care uh to fix the eye…
The load-bearing quote in the video. He states on a dated public record that a specific set of allegations — post-operative neglect, misconduct, "the lying the deceit" — is not yet in the lawsuit and that he intends to put it there. That is a statement about a filing not yet made, made while at least two Taban actions were already pending. It is a prospective filing statement, not a core filing-conduct factor, so it cannot support Strong. Tier: Moderate (Threatened or prospective filing)
Watch at 01:28 — youtube.com ↗Claim / pleading description¶
now due to the Statute of Limitations on medical malpractice in California being one year I don't really have a choice but to file the lawsuit myself and represent myself Pro say
A directly stated reason for proceeding pro se — a time bar plus an inability to retain counsel, rather than a preference for self-representation. the case tracker records C046 with pro_se: Yes. This is the clearest first-person explanation of the pro se posture located anywhere in this research.
Watch at 01:41 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
point and another reason is the medical malpractice uh limit is one year the the statutes so after one year in the state of California you can no longer sue for medical malpractice and we're coming up on that point haven't had much success…
An explicit, dated announcement of an intended pro-se filing on the Taban matter — 110 days before C046 and 114 days before C101, both of which he did file and both of which carry pro_se = Yes. It also (a) states the California one-year malpractice limitation and that it is "coming up", (b) uses the video as a recruitment channel for co-claimants ("20 or 30 people"), and (c) asserts four prior lawsuits against the doctor in Los Angeles County court — a checkable claim the tracker does not hold, since it records only Tufano's own actions. Not Strong: Threatened or prospective filing is not one of the three core factors.
Watch at 01:03 — youtube.com ↗Self-reported litigation count¶
I've had to file multiple appeals. It takes it like they take two weeks to correspond with the West Coast cord and by the time they mail it to me, my actions are already getting dismissed because it's taking too long.
A first-person statement of appellate filing volume and of the mechanism he attributes his dismissals to, cross-country mail delay to a West Coast court. It is not a claim of volume across forums and multiple appeals is undated and unquantified.
Watch at 00:47 — youtube.com ↗Self-reported litigation count¶
so I filed about a dozen lawsuits Al together and every single one of them was dismissed by a judge as I said before I could even serve the opposing Council papers
both halves are checkable. Volume: 21 docket records exist on or before 2025-01-08, of which 20 were filed by him — so "about a dozen" understates the tracker, unless he means only the 2023–2025 federal/state run (C039, C040, C041, C042, C043, C044, C045, C046, C001, C002, C092, C093, C101 = thirteen), for which it is close to exact. Outcomes: a documented cluster of dismissals precedes this video — C042 (2024-11-13), C040 (2024-12-09), C044 (2024-12-11), C041 (2024-12-16), C043 (2024-12-30), the last of those nine days before publication. But "every single one" is overbroad on the same date: C045, C046, C101, C001 and C002 were all live.
Watch at 02:02 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
So, Dr. Tobond makes me blind, disabled, and disfigured. And I call up every lawyer in California. Not one of them wants to help me. I filed the court case myself, and the judges just throw out the cases, all corrupt as you could ever…
Gives the origin of the speaker's pro se posture: no California lawyer would take the case, so he filed it himself. He then reports that the judges threw the cases out, in the plural, attributes that to judicial corruption, and gives it as his reason for taking the dispute public.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
So, every single time, like in December, right after I filed the case, I had strabismas [strabismus] surgery and the defendants filed opposition. I was unable to respond to it. The judge granted whatever. Then in May, I had to go to…
Three specific, docket-checkable instances of a claimed pattern — surgery rendering him unable to respond, an unopposed defense filing, and an adverse ruling. Each has a month attached (December, May, November 2025) and the second names the procedure and city. This is the most concrete account in this research of why filings went unanswered in the California state matters, and it is directly checkable against C101/C102's docket and against the batch-6 finding that C101 was dismissed for failure to file a case-management statement. It also bears on the recurring question of whether non-responses were inability or default.
Watch at 01:31 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
I filed for disability with New York State. It's been 2 years. I've had to sue the Social Security Administration. I have an active lawsuit against the doctor that botched me and they're just dragging it on and on.
Two separate filings confirmed in his own words, one of them against a defendant he names verbatim. The Social Security suit maps to the tracked New York action, which was filed 2025-07-02 and pending at publication; the doctor is never named, so the two California actions are a dataset-derived inference. The framing that he has had to sue, and the complaint that the doctor's case is being drawn out, are both worth preserving as spoken.
Watch at 00:30 — youtube.com ↗Court-treatment allegation¶
documents is that case management statement dated July 10th, but this was before I started e-iling.
Gives a specific date for the filing he says was ignored. Independently notable because another researched video, "California Judge ABUSES BLIND PATIENT to Defend Doctor" (published 2025-07-11), records a read-aloud motion to recuse citing a July 10, 2025 hearing before the same California judge — the same date, from a different video, in the same proceeding.
Watch at 00:16 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
Well, I already did. I submitted a notice of appeal. I showed, hey, this case management statement was submitted back in July. Why are you dismissing my case? It's it's just a completely ridiculous dismissal.
States that an appeal had already been filed at publication. C101's record documents multiple notices of appeal in this period (a Sept. 29, 2025 notice → appeal B350018, dismissed with remittitur Mar. 25, 2026; a July 29, 2025 notice → B348769). This video does not identify which one, and this research does not resolve it.
Watch at 00:41 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
Yeah, you can make up lies and dismiss my case and tell me the wrong hearing times and pretend that half of my documents weren't filed, saying I didn't submit a case management statement, yet I literally filed one in July. I mean, I filed…
He complains that the court dismissed his case for a missing case management statement he says he filed in July, and confirms he filed a notice of appeal from that dismissal. The recited ground matches a dismissal order recorded three days before publication.
Watch at 00:28 — youtube.com ↗Claim / pleading description¶
And then to use the word double vision as opposed to strabismas, literally that's one of the things I sued him for, fraudulent concealment.
He names a specific cause of action on camera, fraudulent concealment, as one of the things he sued the surgeon for, and gives the factual basis he attaches to it. The dataset does not currently record a fraudulent-concealment count for any of the eye-surgery cases.
Watch at 00:31 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
As soon as I serve them legal papers, they drop this doctor like a hot sack of [expletive omitted by the captions] Medical Board of California, American Academy of Opthalmology, American Board of Cosmetic Surgery, American Society of…
He confirms on camera that he served legal papers on four named credentialing and licensing bodies, all of them tracked defendants, and names the surgeon. The closing sentence is his rendering of their replies, framed as such, not his own position.
Watch at 00:06 — youtube.com ↗Claim / pleading description¶
So, none of that matters. And yeah, of course, they're not completely responsible for the guy's actions, but the reason we're in court is to determine what percent responsibility you have. and ruining my
States his own theory for suing the credentialing bodies rather than only the surgeon, namely apportionment of responsibility, and confirms that an action is live. The quote ends mid-sentence because the video does.
Watch at 00:45 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
So, we filed this motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. We filed another motion to get rid of this biased judge and I filed a whole bunch of other stuff asking for sanctions against them.
Three distinct filings claimed, all checkable. The disqualification motion matches what the research already holds from three days either side of this: a researched statement of 2025-07-10 — "I'm going to file… a motion to disqualify the judge" — and a published statement of 2025-07-11 — "Motion to recuse and demand for jury trial. In a hearing that occurred on July 10th, 2025, Judge Edward B. Morton Jr. has shown undeniable bias." So on 2025-07-10 it is stated as an intention and by 2025-07-13 as done: this video is the confirmation of a filing the dataset otherwise holds only as a stated intent. The first of the three claimed filings does not fit his posture. He is the plaintiff in every tracked matter in this dispute (C046, C101, C102), and a plaintiff does not move to dismiss his own case for insufficient service. Either he means a motion directed at the defendants' service of their papers on him, or the description is loose. Neither reading is adopted; the tension is recorded rather than resolved.
Watch at 00:28 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
And I I'm already filing appeals. Like, I know this is going to go to the court of appeals and who knows if they'll even allow it to go up to the Supreme Court, but like nothing's even happened already and they're already trying to screw…
An appellate-intent statement with an unusually close docket neighbour. The case tracker records for C046 that “Two Ninth Circuit appeals are on file in this action… No. 25-4324 (docketed July 14, 2025; opening brief filed Aug. 8, 2025).” This video was published 2025-07-13, the day before. A competing and equally available referent: another researched statement, from a video of 2025-07-11, records him saying “Judge Edward B. Morton Jr. has ignored Frank Tufano's notice of appeal filed on June 2nd, exhibit C” — so an appeal was, on his own account, already on file in the California state matter six weeks earlier, and “already filing appeals” may simply refer to that. Both readings are recorded; neither is adopted. Note also that a direct appeal within the same case is deliberately not Filing after an adverse decision under the published rubric — that factor means a new or repeat action, not the ordinary appellate remedy.
Watch at 00:42 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
And then we had to file uh some stuff against the current Tibon lawsuits. And there was also uh two new lawsuits. We had to file a third party complaint against the lawyer that got my Tik Tok taken down. And then we had to file a uh a new…
TikTok here is the tracked dispute, not the everyday noun — he is describing litigation over the platform takedown, not casual platform use. "The lawyer that got my Tik Tok taken down" corresponds to Lavely & Singer PC (also rendered "Lively & Singer" in captions elsewhere), a named defendant in C014 (Lackawanna 2025-04277, filed 2025-06-06, six days before publication). "The bond" is a caption mangling of Taban, who appears in the defendant roster of C053, the federal continuation of C014. Moderate, not Strong: Filing announced or confirmed is not a core factor.
Watch at 03:08 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
despite still having to get medical care and undergo many surgeries, I have been forced to still have to um to still have to participate in the court proceedings. So hopefully the judges in the federal and superior California court uh did…
The strongest quote researched from this video. He identifies two concurrent forums by description — "the federal and superior California court" — and as of 2025-05-09 the dataset holds exactly two live actions in the eye-surgery dispute matching that description: C046 (filed M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00011 on 2025-01-02 and, per the recorded litigation timeline, transferred and opened in the Central District of California as 2:25-cv-00147 on 2025-01-03), and C101 (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, 25SMCV00041, filed 2025-01-06). "Federal … California" and "superior California court" map onto those two and onto nothing else in the dataset on that date. He also confirms a filing he has made — a "notice to delay the case," i.e. a continuance request grounded in medical incapacity — filed in one or both. This is the earliest continuance-on-health-grounds statement located in the archive; the dataset's other health-and-trial-fitness material in this action is from 2026-07-10 / 2026-07-15, fourteen months later. Party statement, no source offered; the filing is asserted, not evidenced.
Watch at 00:25 — youtube.com ↗Claim / pleading description¶
in addition to Dr tabon there's several other institutions medical board of California American Academy of Opthalmology American Board of cosmetic surgery American Society of optomic plastic and reconstructive surgery ... so uh the lawsuit…
Independently confirms the defendant list recorded in the case tracker for C046 (and identically for C101/C102): the Medical Board of California, American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Board of Cosmetic Surgery, and the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, alongside Dr. Taban. Also states the theory for joining them — regulatory/oversight failure rather than direct treatment.
Watch at 05:02 — youtube.com ↗Court-order reaction¶
And that's the reason that I shouldn't need a professional expert witness because all of those doctors that actually did revision surgeries on me, they're testifying in the case. And just the fact that those medical doctors perform…
Argues that the surgeons who performed revision procedures removed the need for a separately retained expert. The tracked action was decided on the ground that expert disclosures were not timely served.
Watch at 00:14 — youtube.com ↗Court-order reaction¶
As expected, the corrupt judge has ruled in favor of Tibon and has denied me a jury trial.
A first-person report of the adverse disposition and of the loss of a jury trial. The characterisation of the judge is the speaker's own and is not a finding.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Court-order reaction¶
And the biggest joke here is, oh, if you submit expert disclosures, we won't dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. There is no expert that will work with a prosay litigant. You need to be an attorney to even get an expert uh opinion.
Restates the court's conditional cure term almost verbatim - that the action will not be dismissed with prejudice if expert disclosures are served - and states why he considers that impossible as a self-represented litigant.
Watch at 00:41 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
and the state is refusing to pay me disability. The corrupt court system has protected this doctor and I have not been reimbursed
In one sentence he reports that he has not been reimbursed after multiple proceedings and alleges that the court system has protected the doctor. The tracked record is consistent with the first half, but the characterisation of the courts is his own and is not a judicial finding. The reference to the state refusing disability concerns a benefit decision, not any tracked case.
Watch at 00:31 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
The judge dismissed my case for failing to submit a case management statement, but I mailed that to the court and all defendant parties in July. Well, basically August, but still several months ago.
States the specific procedural ground on which a case was dismissed. This is the detail that identifies the underlying proceeding — "case management statement" is California civil-procedure terminology (CM-110), and the case tracker records an Oct. 13, 2025 minute order in C101 (25SMCV00041, LA County Superior Court) indexed as an Order to Show Cause re sanctions for failure to submit a case-management statement, four days before this video's publish date.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Opposing-counsel allegation¶
After spending over $50,000 on orbital reconstruction surgery, Dr. Raymond Douglas no longer wanted to treat me as a patient. And the only reason I could think of why is that Dr. Tobond's bully lawyers [...] subpoenaed this doctor's office…
Describes a discovery step he attributes to the opposing side, a subpoena to a non-party physician's office for medical records, and the consequence he says followed, namely that the physician stopped treating him. It supplies the factual predicate for the tortious-interference intention stated later in the same video.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
To sum up how the Tiban lawsuit is going, basically they took advantage of me being blind and disabled in bed for the first few months of this year because I was unable to receive any correspondence or communicate with the court and I…
A dated, first-person account of a claimed incapacity covering "the first few months of this year" — January to roughly April 2025 — and of the court rejecting his explanation. This is the same claimed incapacity that, more than a year later, the C.D. Cal. court in C046 found unsupported: the recorded court findings include Judge Stephen V. Wilson's 2026-08-07 order citing "insufficient medical support for claimed incapacity, public video activity inconsistent with that claimed incapacity." Recording the July 2025 version of the claim in his own words gives that later finding an earlier baseline to be read against. Tier: Moderate (Adverse outcome described).
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
I've literally been like physically disabled and unable to really read anything for the beginning part of this year. And I had someone send a letter in to the California court explaining, hey, uh, you know, I'm I'm still having some vision…
A party's account of an unfavourable procedural ruling in a named forum. This is a party allegation, not a court finding, and no order to that effect appears in the recorded litigation timeline; whether such a letter was filed and how it was treated is a docket question.
Watch at 09:12 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
There was a hearing on May 7th, actually the date of my orbital reconstruction surgery where the court granted the opposition a motion when I was literally undergoing surgery at that time.
The only date-precise statement among this group of researched statements, and it lands exactly on the docket. The recorded court findings include two orders dated 2025-05-07 in C101 (Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al., 25SMCV00041, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County), both granting motions brought by the opposition and both before Judge Edward B. Moreton, Jr.: a minute order concerning ASOPRS, with a mirrored tentative ruling stating the court would grant ASOPRS's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction; and a minute order concerning the Medical Board, with a mirrored tentative ruling stating the court would sustain the Medical Board's demurrer without leave to amend.
Watch at 00:10 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
and the court has ignored all of my previous requests and filings to postpone the case and delay the case. The judge is literally ignoring my filings and pretending I don't exist and granting the opposition their motions.
Names a specific, checkable category of filing — requests to postpone or continue — made before 2025-06-10 in the case identified above. That is a concrete docket cross-reference point: C101's register of actions on the LA Superior CAP portal would show whether continuance requests were filed and how they were disposed of. Note that C101 was later dismissed as an OSC sanction for non-appearance (2025-10-13), which is the opposite failure mode from the one alleged here — a tension worth carrying into any claims pass.
Watch at 00:23 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
because when these people don't like you, they accidentally make an awful lot of clerical errors, losing your documents, saying they didn't receive stuff, all to just get your case dismissed and not help you in any way.
The generalized allegation the title asserts, in his own words — that court clerks deliberately lose pro se filings. The video index describes this video as general commentary about court handling of pro se filings; the transcript shows the commentary is not general — it is grounded in one specific case, one court, and three specific attempts.
Watch at 00:38 — youtube.com ↗Dispute background statement¶
He called his judge buddies and maybe even spoke to Dr. Tibbon about botching me.
The most direct statement anywhere in this research that the Saladino-related dispute and the Taban eye-surgery dispute are, in his telling, one coordinated scheme rather than two separate matters. The video index assigns this video to the eye-surgery dispute with the Saladino/Taban overlap as its primary topic — the transcript confirms that framing exactly.
Watch at 00:52 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
But I don't trust the court system at all. All these court cases, all these judges, what there's no legitimacy to any of it. And I don't expect the court system to compensate me. All the doctors are crooked. All the law firms are crooked.…
A blanket statement that he does not trust the court system, that his court cases and the judges hearing them lack legitimacy, and that he does not expect the courts to compensate him. Recorded as a public statement about the forum; no court has found anything of the kind.
Watch at 02:03 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
And the federal case seems to be okay. Like, the judge isn't completely crooked. But since the start, this state court judge has been out to get me.
A rare non-adverse statement about a court, and useful for exactly that reason — it shows the criticism is forum-specific rather than uniform, and it dates a point (2025-12-21) at which he still regarded the federal Taban case (C046) as proceeding fairly. C046 was decided against him eight months later, and “Why you CANT WIN a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit!!!” (2026-07-06) shows the federal framing had turned by then. A useful anchor for any chronology of his stated attitude toward each forum.
Watch at 00:43 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
Beverly Hills. What is the significance of Beverly Hills in surgery? Think of the court system. There's a whole state court system with multiple Los Angeles branches. This whole system is set up, the judges are bought and paid for. The…
Though framed as commentary on an industry, it names Beverly Hills and the Los Angeles state court system — the forum of C101/C102 (Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al., Superior Court of California, LA County; both case numbers carry the SMCV Santa Monica prefix). Less case-specific than the other two videos, but not forum-neutral either.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Court-treatment allegation¶
So, I've been trying my best to represent myself in the state court against Dr. Toban, but this judge has been screwing me over since day one,
Confirms pro-se status in an identified forum, identifies the opposing party by surname and alleges the presiding judge has been against him since day one. The judge is never named and no court has made any finding on the allegation.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
Yeah. And I'm not too confident in the lawsuit and the legal system either because in my experience uh these judges just are just going to protect the doctor and I'm not going to get anything out of it.
A bias allegation attached to a specific, identifiable proceeding (the California malpractice action) rather than to courts in general.
Watch at 08:47 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
I'm waiting to hear back from the court. I don't know what's going on. I mailed in my documents. I paid the filing fee and the judge is literally just ignoring this stuff. So, it's it's it's ridiculous. I I' I'd rather not deal with the…
The pivot stated in one breath — he describes mailing documents and paying a filing fee, says it produced nothing, and in the same sentence substitutes standing outside the defendant's office handing out flyers, "for the rest of my life." That is Cost imposition as stated motive: an indefinite pressure campaign offered as what he does instead of litigating. Per the batch contract's leafleting rule this tiers Moderate, not Strong — the factor fits, but the Strong rubric requires filing conduct and the cost mechanism here is the leafleting. The mechanism is written out so the call is auditable. "This doctor's office" is a public figure's professional premises and no address is given, so §5 does not apply.
Watch at 00:38 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
The court system is controlled. I mean, even the social media is controlled, but everything is controlled. So, the judge is just going to dismiss the case. They're never going to give me any money. They're never going to pay me because…
A textbook Judicial or forum bias alleged statement — the courts are "controlled", the defendants are "connected", and the dismissal is treated as a foregone conclusion. He says "the case", singular, and names no court, docket number or judge, so which action he means cannot be fixed from the transcript. Worth noting that his prediction is, on the docket, largely what happened across the Taban eye-surgery litigation: C063 was closed with the TRO denied and his objections overruled as "unavailing", and C046 and the California actions produced no recorded recovery.
Watch at 00:23 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
question so for me at this point you know considering all these lawyers and judges will collude against me to protect this doctor uh the least stressful thing for me to do is just make everyone aware of this guy help people from being in…
Among the most important statements in this research, and it points the opposite way from the pattern. On 2024-12-21 he states that the courts are closed to him and that publicity, not litigation, is his chosen course. Verified against the case tracker: C046, Tufano v. Taban et al (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00011), was filed 2025-01-02, twelve days later, and C101, Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al. (L.A. Superior 25SMCV00041), on 2025-01-06, sixteen days later — both pro se, both in the eye-surgery dispute group, both naming this doctor. This is a temporal fact, not a causal claim, and it is a third evidence shape alongside the silent pre-filing statements and the announced-and-fulfilled filings recorded elsewhere in this research: disavowed, then filed. A later reader must not treat a disavowal as evidence that no filing followed.
Watch at 04:25 — youtube.com ↗Named alongside
Other tracked parties named in the same originating actions.
Related dispute groups
- Taban / eye-surgery-related litigationFrank Tufano's lawsuits over eye surgery by Mehryar Ray Taban, MD: seven docket records filed 2025-2026 in California, Pennsylvania and federal courts.
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.