Frank Tufano lawsuits involving Lewis & Lin LLC
2 originating actions · 2 docket records
Cases involving Lewis & Lin LLC
Lewis & Lin LLC is named in 2 de-duplicated originating actions in this dataset (2 docket records) across 2 courts filed between February 21, 2025 and February 24, 2025. 2 of the docket records carry a recorded outcome.
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| February 24, 2025 | 651064/2025Frank Tufano v. Shopify Inc. et al | New York State Supreme Court | Motion denied (non-final) |
| February 21, 2025 | 3:25-cv-00316Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al | 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.
No cognizable basis for requested relief; service not shown (non-final)
Court denied the pro se motion in its entirety, stating that there was no cognizable basis to stay unidentified matters in other courts or quash subpoenas in matters not pending before it; the court also noted no affidavit showing proper service of the…
What the filings allege
- 651064/2025Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action for fraud against Shopify Inc., Shopify (USA) Inc., and the law firm Lewis & Lin LLC.
- 3:25-cv-00316Plaintiff alleges fraud against Shopify (USA) Inc.
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
10 researched statements are linked to cases naming Lewis & Lin 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 Lewis & Lin 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¶
We've filed multiple lawsuits against Shopify. We've contacted the police department multiple times. The most recent lawsuit we just did, we're suing the police department. We're suing all the banks. Hopefully hopefully naming every single…
The speaker states in his own words that he has filed more than one action against Shopify on the same chargeback grievance, and then describes the most recent one by its party composition — the police department plus "all the banks." The dataset holds six Shopify actions (C013/C054, C047, C050, C072, C095) on the chargeback/reviews theory, and C083's amended complaint of 2026-08-24 names Carbondale Police Department, Shopify and seven banks. The identification is from the party composition described in the transcript, not from the title.
Watch at 00:15 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
Do not use Shopify. They will steal money from you. I've filed multiple lawsuits against them. The judge just throws them out.
In one sentence he states, of a single named opponent, that he has filed *multiple* suits ("I've filed multiple lawsuits against them") and that those suits were dismissed ("The judge just throws them out"). That is the repeat-filing-on-one-dispute core factor stated by the litigant himself, plus a self-reported volume claim and an adverse-outcome description, about a party named in the transcript rather than only in the title or the location tag. Strong test re-applied on the corrected wording: a core factor is present (Repeat filing on the same dispute) and an identified dispute is present (DSP002, named in the speaker's own words), so the tier holds. The corrected en-orig wording is materially the same claim as the superseded translated rendering ("I filed many lawsuits against them. The judge simply dismisses them") — plural filings, same defendant, dismissals — so the Strong classification survives the retranslation unchanged.
Watch at 00:23 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
I have multiple lawsuits filed in the state and federal court, which they don't seem to care about either.
He names a tracked defendant and, in the same breath, states that he has more than one action on file against it, in both state and federal court, over the same chargeback grievance — the conduct the Strong rubric describes. It is also independently checkable and it checks out: as of this upload date (2025-07-16) the case tracker holds five Shopify actions, two state and three federal — C095 (New York State Supreme, 651064/2025, filed 2025-02-24), C013 (Lackawanna 2025-04276, filed 2025-06-06), C047 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00316, filed 2025-02-21), C050 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00975, filed 2025-06-02) and C054 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-01227, filed 2025-07-07, nine days before this video). The tracker separately records Strong refiling evidence for C054 and C072 on this same grievance. The classification is a research classification recording what the speaker said; it is not a judicial finding and not a vexatious-litigant determination.
Watch at 00:30 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
So, at some point, maybe I'm going to have to get off Shopify and sue Shopify. I don't know. I've already sued these people. I have lawsuits filed against Shopify. What am I going to file lawsuits against the credit card companies?
In twelve seconds he says he may sue Shopify, that he has already sued them, and that he has lawsuits (plural) filed against them — then floats extending the same grievance to a new class of defendant. That is repeat filing on the same dispute in the speaker’s own words, against a named, tracked defendant on a tracked dispute (the Shopify / business-platform litigation). The tracked record agrees with the plural: as of 2025-05-26, C040 (filed 2024-05-22), C047 (filed 2025-02-21) and C095 (NY Supreme, filed 2025-02-24) had all been filed, and C050 and C054 follow within six weeks. One documented ambiguity on this channel: “Shopify” has elsewhere been named as a subpoena recipient (in C100) rather than as a defendant, which argues against tying casual mentions to the Shopify dispute group — but that caution does not apply here, because “sue Shopify” and “lawsuits filed against Shopify” are unambiguous. A more conservative reading would hold that the passage announces no new filing — the “maybe I’m going to have to… sue Shopify” is hedged, and the rest is retrospective — and classify it Moderate under self-reported filing volume. The Strong classification stands because “I’ve already sued these people… I have lawsuits filed against Shopify” is itself a statement of repeat filing on one dispute, not merely of volume.
Watch at 04:36 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
[his own words] "So, uh, the plaintiff's lawyer, David Lynn, Esquire, I filed multiple lawsuits against him and Shopify to no avail. I filed a motion to quash, you know, these secret society degenerates, Freemason, Illuminati, and whoever…
He names the opposing attorney and the platform, states he filed multiple actions against them, and reports the outcome as “no avail”. The dispute is identified and the cases are identifiable: C047 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00316, 2025-02-21) and C095 (NY Sup. Ct. 651064/2025, 2025-02-24), both in the Shopify / business-platform conspiracy litigation. The case tracker's refiling note for C095 reads: “The same single fraud claim against Shopify and Lewis & Lin LLC over the same misused court order, filed three days after C047 in a second forum. Concurrent duplicate.” His own words describe exactly that conduct. The subpoena grievance those cases plead is also narrated at [11:16]–[13:18] of this video. A more conservative reading would classify this as Moderate (Filing announced or confirmed; Self-reported filing volume), since he says “multiple lawsuits” without expressly saying the second repeats the first, making “repeat filing on the same dispute” an inference from the docket rather than from his sentence. The Strong classification rests on the grievance (the motion to quash, the misused court order) being stated in the same breath and being singular, and on the fact that both readings agree on what the conduct was.
Watch at 15:49 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
so whether I need to file more lawsuits U maybe switch over to the state courts sue the banks Sue Shopify I don't know I mean if it takes me till I'm 110 years old I will get my money back
Three of the four elements are checkable and check out. “Switch over to the state courts” and “Sue Shopify”: C047 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00316, Shopify (USA) Inc. + Lewis & Lin LLC) filed 2025-02-21, 44 days later, and C095 (NY Sup. Ct. 651064/2025, Shopify Inc. + Shopify (USA) + Lewis & Lin) filed 2025-02-24, 47 days later — a federal action followed three days later by a state one. “Sue the banks”: no bank action over chargebacks appears in the case tracker; the Fidelity Bank mortgage and flood-insurance dispute is a different thing and must not be attached here. Recorded as a temporal fact, not a causal claim.
Watch at 04:19 — youtube.com ↗Self-reported litigation count¶
and after seeing this nonsense I immediately filed two new court cases against the opposing Council for this fraudulent activity and then I showed proof the LC in the court order is not even active
A self-reported count of new filings, made against counsel for the party holding a judgment against him. C047, Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al, M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00316, whose defendants include Lewis & Lin LLC, was filed 2025-02-21 — the same calendar day this video published. See the note in ## Research Notes: the "two" is not cleanly satisfiable on that date and should not be treated as resolved. (Tier: Moderate — Filing announced or confirmed; Self-reported filing volume)
Watch at 01:13 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement / stated motive¶
And when I filed the lawsuit in the court, the judges threw it out. They don't care. When I had the local police department and sent them documents, they didn't care. You know, no one's going to prosecute Shopify.
The most consequential Shopify statement located in this effort. On 2026-06-08 he states two grievances in one breath: the courts dismissed his Shopify case, and the local police department would not act on documents he submitted about Shopify. On 2026-07-29 — 51 days later — C083 (Tufano v. Carbondale Police Department et al, M.D. Pa.
Watch at 02:26 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
I've already filed a federal lawsuit against the lawyer that did this as well as Shopify and I filed an emergency motion to stay and quash everything going on
C047, Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al, M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00316, was filed 2025-02-21 — the day before this video published — and its defendants are exactly All Operating Corporations and LLC's for Shopify; Lewis & Lin LLC; Shopify (USA) Inc., i.e. "the lawyer that did this as well as Shopify." That is about as tight as a publish-date adjacency gets, and it is stated as a fact about upload timing. (Tier: Moderate — Filing announced or confirmed)
Watch at 01:12 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
There are multiple grounds on which this lawsuit should have already been dismissed. The lawyer for the plaintiff committed perjury because he said that he served the default judgment against me, which is them trying to steal money from…
The strongest passage among those researched from this video, because the second half is independently corroborated in the case tracker. The subpoena grievance — that opposing counsel used a court order to pull his business records from third parties — is the pleaded wrong of C047 (Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al, filed 2025-02-21), whose recorded refiling basis reads "targeting the Lewis & Lin court order used to obtain his business records", and of C095 (filed 2025-02-24), "the same single fraud claim against Shopify and Lewis & Lin LLC over the same misused court order." Lewis & Lin LLC and David D. Lin Esq are both tracked parties. The "default judgment" half matches C100's default judgment and injunction of 2025-01-30. So this passage joins the C100 default judgment to the Shopify-dispute subpoena litigation in the speaker's own words, on a dated record, six months after both. It describes no new filing — the C047/C095 actions were already on file — so no filing-conduct factor is coded. Tier: Moderate (Adverse outcome described)
Watch at 01:32 — youtube.com ↗Named alongside
Other tracked parties named in the same originating actions.
Related dispute groups
- Shopify / business-platform conspiracy litigationSeven docket records naming Shopify entities and co-defendants, filed 2024-2026 in Pennsylvania, New York and federal court, including two mass filings.
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.