Frank Tufano lawsuits involving FRM LLC
2 originating actions · 2 docket records
Cases involving FRM LLC
FRM LLC is named in 2 de-duplicated originating actions in this dataset (2 docket records) in Lackawanna County filed between September 22, 2025 and September 24, 2025. 2 of the docket records carry a recorded outcome.
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| September 24, 2025 | 2025-07808Fidelity Bank v. Free Range Meat LLC | Lackawanna County | Plaintiff bank voluntarily discontinued the confession-of-judgment action with prejudice |
| September 22, 2025 | 2025-07728Fidelity Bank v. FRM LLC | Lackawanna County | Plaintiff bank voluntarily discontinued the mortgage-foreclosure action with prejudice |
What the filings allege
- 2025-07808Fidelity Deposit & Discount Bank filed a Complaint in Confession of Judgment — a Pennsylvania procedure letting a creditor obtain judgment directly, without trial, under a confession-of-judgment clause in a signed loan or financing document — against Free Range Meat LLC, FRM LLC, and Frank Tufano individually.
- 2025-07728Fidelity Deposit & Discount Bank sued to foreclose a commercial mortgage on the business premises at 25 Dundaff Street, Carbondale.
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
7 researched statements are linked to cases naming FRM 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 FRM 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.
Claim / pleading description¶
So I ended up filing a lawsuit in May of last year and that's been going through the courts. But the bank being the crooks they are had their lawyer file other lawsuits against my other LLC's for the same issue. But since it's the same…
Three docket facts stated from memory - a suit he filed in May 2025, a responsive action against his LLC, and a judgment entered against him - each of which corresponds to a tracked record.
Watch at 02:46 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
And then today, what's [ __ ] insane is I got a notice that my building's being foreclosed on. Now, I filed a lawsuit last year. This issue is in the court system. It was being resolved, but they went to some crooked lawyer and filed new…
He confirms a suit he filed the previous year over the bank dispute and describes the bank filing new lawsuits against different entities that produced a judgment against his building, on the day he says a foreclosure notice arrived.
Watch at 01:02 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
Now, I responded to those lawsuits, but the judge probably ignore them because you can't represent yourself prosay. However, I also filed motions to consolidate in my prosay case, which I'm guessing the judge didn't even bother to look at.
Confirms filings he has made, responses to the bank's actions and motions to consolidate, and alleges in the same breath that the judge disregards them because he is unrepresented.
Watch at 01:25 — youtube.com ↗Court-order reaction¶
I just got a notice from the sheriff that they're trying to sell my property for closure in March, which is completely insane. So, I paid off most of the mortgage payment last year and we had a dispute with the company.
Reports receipt of a sheriff's sale notice with a March sale date and traces it back to a disputed mortgage payoff. Consistent with the tracked foreclosure chronology, in which the writ of execution and sale affidavit were filed on 2025-12-01. No bank, case number or court is named in the video.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
The action still in court. So, I don't know how they were able to get this issued. I think they filed a separate lawsuit against the LLC, which isn't valid. It's just a holding company. And now I got this notice in the mail from the…
A first person account of a counterparty splitting proceedings between a personal action and a separate action against his limited liability company, while the action he brought is said to be still in court. This is the entity name split described from the inside, the phenomenon that makes company name docket searches necessary. His remark that the separate suit is not valid is his own characterisation, not a ruling.
Watch at 00:16 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
And as I have stated, I've had people file lawsuits against me, against my different businesses. They did the exact same thing. They mailed me the complaint. I couldn't or didn't respond. They entered the default and then the motion for…
The comparison on which his whole grievance rests — that the same procedure produced a same-day default judgment when he was the defendant, but nothing when he is the plaintiff. Checkable: the tracked dataset already contains at least one case filed against him (C022, recorded as closed/discontinued with prejudice, found-6 pass). Whether any such case produced a same-day default judgment is a concrete docket question.
Watch at 01:35 — youtube.com ↗Court-treatment allegation¶
Like I responded to all the court hearings, all the actions. I don't know how they're allowed to do this and seize the property, but this is absolutely crazy. This might be some crooked stuff.
Asserts that he responded to all hearings and actions, and characterises the outcome as possibly crooked. The allegation names no judge, court or official. Recorded as what the speaker said, never as a finding.
Watch at 00:32 — youtube.com ↗Named alongside
Other tracked parties named in the same originating actions.
Related dispute groups
- Fidelity Bank mortgage and flood-insurance disputeFour docket records over the Fidelity Bank commercial mortgage on 25-31 Dundaff Street, Carbondale, and the disputed 2025 payoff; all discontinued.
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.