Frank Tufano lawsuits involving Fenix Internet LLC
3 originating actions · 4 docket records
Cases involving Fenix Internet LLC
Fenix Internet LLC is named in 3 de-duplicated originating actions in this dataset (4 docket records) across 2 courts filed between July 8, 2024 and June 26, 2025. 3 of the docket records carry a recorded outcome.
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| June 26, 2025 | 3:25-cv-01165Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Pending; stayed since 2025-12-18 pending resolution of C051 (3:25-cv-00976); no lift-stay entry appears on the docket as of 2026-08-21 |
| June 2, 2025 | 3:25-cv-00976Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Default-judgment motion denied (non-final); FRCP 4(m) service deadline set |
| May 27, 2025 | 2025-03931Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC | Lackawanna County | Removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (No. 3:25-cv-01165); same originating action as C052 |
| July 8, 2024 | 3:24-cv-01115Tufano v. Fenix Internet, LLC | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | 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.
Failure to state a claim; appeal deemed frivolous
Order dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim without further leave to amend and deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith.
Appeal certified not taken in good faith; IFP on appeal denied
Ruling on Tufano's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the dismissal of this action, the district court 'CERTIFIES that the plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith' and denied the motion. A second in forma pauperis motion followed on…
Appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute (3d Cir.)
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 24-3329. The district docket records the appellate order verbatim: 'ORDER of USCA ORDERED that the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed for failure to timely prosecute insofar as appellant failed…
What the filings allege
- 3:25-cv-01165This action originated as Tufano v.
- 3:25-cv-00976Plaintiff sued Fenix Internet LLC, doing business as OnlyFans.
- 2025-03931Plaintiff alleges his OnlyFans account (operated in the U.S.
- 3:24-cv-01115Plaintiff alleges that OnlyFans (operated in the U.S.
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 Fenix Internet LLC 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 Fenix Internet LLC, 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.
Repeated/escalatory filing¶
I spent every day last week writing up lawsuits, suing this oven company because they won't send me replacement parts for the oven. I'm suing the bank because they didn't uh honor my mortgage terms. I'm suing these I literally filed seven…
A self-reported filing count that the docket data corroborates exactly, with two of the seven identified by their subject matter in the same breath. The case tracker records exactly seven actions filed in the week Monday 2025-05-26 → Sunday 2025-06-01: C007, C008, C009, C010, C011 and C012 (all Lackawanna County, 2025-05-27) and C097 (New York Supreme Court, 2025-05-29). "Suing this oven company because they won't send me replacement parts for the oven" is C012, Tufano v. Rational USA Inc (2025-03932), whose own claims summary reads: "purchased a commercial 'Rational' combi oven … that arrived missing parts; the parts supplier … and Rational USA took more than six months to provide the missing parts, then sent the wrong ones, after which Rational ceased contact." "I'm suing the bank because they didn't uh honor my mortgage terms" is C009, Tufano v. Fidelity Bank (2025-03929), part of the Fidelity Bank mortgage and flood-insurance dispute, which the recorded litigation timeline shows filed 2025-05-27 "over the disputed payoff and flood-insurance charge." The Repeat filing on the same dispute factor is carried by C011 (Fenix Internet, filed about six and a half months after C042's dismissal) and C010 (USDA, about two months after C049's dismissal), which the recorded litigation timeline characterises as new complaints on already-litigated grievances — though he does not say so here. The count matching is a corroboration, not proof he meant those seven. He names two; the other five are inferred from the calendar alone.
Watch at 16:48 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
This week, we filed a case in both the federal court and the state court. As if a judge is going to do the right thing, though. They're probably just going to dismiss the case and I'm going to be screwed as usual, losing money.
A self-reported parallel filing that the docket independently confirms. In the ten days before publication the tracker records exactly that pattern, twice over: C050 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00975) and C051 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00976) filed 2025-06-02, and C013 (Lackawanna 2025-04276, Tufano v. Shopify) and C014 (Lackawanna 2025-04277, Tufano v. TikTok) filed 2025-06-06. This is one of the rare cases where a self-report about filing conduct can be checked against the docket and matches. The second half alleges the outcome is predetermined ("as if a judge is going to do the right thing"), which is Judicial or forum bias alleged.
Watch at 00:47 — youtube.com ↗Related dispute groups
- Fenix Internet litigationFour docket records against Fenix Internet LLC filed 2024-2025 in Lackawanna County and federal court; one is stayed pending the outcome of another.
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.