Frank Tufano lawsuits involving Kjar McKenna & Stockalper LLP
4 originating actions · 5 docket records
Cases involving Kjar McKenna & Stockalper LLP
Kjar McKenna & Stockalper LLP is named in 4 de-duplicated originating actions in this dataset (5 docket records) across 4 courts filed between October 23, 2025 and August 16, 2026. 5 of the docket records carry a recorded outcome.
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| August 16, 2026 | 2:26-cv-09565Frank Tufano v. Kjar McKenna and Stockalper LLP et al | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | Dismissed without prejudice on the court's own order; case terminated |
| 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 | 2026-01161Tufano v. The State of California | Lackawanna County | Removed to federal court |
| 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 |
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.
Dismissal for uncorrected filing deficiency
On the court's standard form IFP-10, 'Order of Dismissal or Remand', the court ordered that 'this case is HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED without prejudice', terminated the case and marked it JS-6. The form issues where the court has sent a warning letter about a…
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…
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.
- 2026-01161The 38-page verified complaint traces to an underlying medical-malpractice dispute against Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Mehryar Ray Taban, MD.
- 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.
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
12 researched statements are linked to cases naming Kjar McKenna & Stockalper LLP 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 Kjar McKenna & Stockalper LLP, 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.
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 20:21 in the archived transcript. Play at 12:57 in this project’s compilation ↗
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.
Source removed. Play at 21:07 in this project’s compilation ↗
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:06 in the archived transcript. Play at 16:51 in this project’s compilation ↗
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:36 in the archived transcript.
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 the research notes archived for this video: this publishes one day before a matching filing hits the Lackawanna docket, and that adjacency is recorded with both readings rather than asserted.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:37 in the archived transcript.
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.
Source removed.
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:31 in the archived transcript.
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:30 in the archived transcript.
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:31 in the archived transcript.
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:43 in the archived transcript.
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.
Source removed.
Legal-system allegation¶
landlord is still trying to evict us in court and everyone including my own lawyer seems to be on the side of the jerk off secret society members and you know the continued censorship of my YouTube channel
Three separate things in one sentence, and only one of them is a filing-restriction factor. (1) An eviction proceeding against him is live on 2022-10-25 — direction trap 1 applies squarely: the landlord is the moving party, so this is not a filing by him and cannot support any filing factor. (2) He alleges that the participants in that proceeding, including his own retained lawyer, are aligned with "secret society members" against him. That is an allegation that the forum is not honestly disposed toward him, which is what Judicial or forum bias alleged covers; it is a research classification of what he said, never a finding about any court, lawyer or organisation. (3) The YouTube-censorship grievance is restated. The tier is Moderate rather than Strong because no factor here is a core factor, no case is named, and the eviction matter resolves to no row in any of the 23 CSVs. Possible case/dispute link: Not found in aliases.csv, lawsuits.csv (case_title or defendants), disputes.csv, research_notes.csv or litigation_timeline.csv — the strings landlord and evict return zero across all 23 CSVs, so the eviction proceeding is unresolved, not untracked. No landlord, court or docket is named on camera either. Separately, the "secret society" framing later becomes a pleaded theory in several tracked actions (C038, C048, C059, C035/C063/C066, and aliases.csv carries Beverly Hills Masonic Lodge D0043 and Free and Accepted Masons of Union Lodge No 291 D0108), but he names nobody here, so direction trap 5 applies and no party link is licensed.
Source removed. Quoted at 05:20 in the archived transcript.
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, and against participants in that litigation: eight 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.