Frank Tufano lawsuits involving Robyn Levy
3 originating actions · 4 docket records
Cases involving Robyn Levy
Robyn Levy is named in 3 de-duplicated originating actions in this dataset (4 docket records) across 3 courts filed between December 20, 2023 and April 13, 2026. 4 of the docket records carry a recorded outcome.
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 13, 2026 | 3:26-cv-00939Tufano v. Better Life Foods Inc. et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Removed from state court |
| March 9, 2026 | 2026-01525Tufano v. Better Life | Lackawanna County | Removed to federal court |
| November 14, 2024 | 620245/2024Frank Tufano v. Jake Levy et al | New York State Supreme Court | Default-judgment motion denied; NYSCEF later marks case disposed |
| December 20, 2023 | 3:23-cv-02106Tufano v. Levy 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.
Discovery stayed pending dispositive motions
Order and accompanying memorandum denied the plaintiff’s motion to expedite discovery (Doc. 43) and granted the defence motion to stay discovery (Doc. 45), without prejudice to renewal following resolution of the pending and potentially dispositive motions.…
Improper service / default judgment denied
Court denied plaintiff's motion for default judgment because the proof of service was deficient under CPLR 308, 311 and 3215; it also noted that plaintiff himself signed an affidavit of service despite being a party to the action.
Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (R&R)
R&R recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after repeated opportunities to amend; the later district order is cited as adopting the R&R on Oct. 11, 2024.
What the filings allege
- 3:26-cv-00939Same claims as C036’s First Amended Complaint (the Lackawanna County original of this removed action): a recipe-theft/trade-dress dispute over Tufano’s proprietary “Best Bar” protein bar (whey protein, beef fat tallow, honey, vanilla, salt, created Dec.
- 2026-01525Plaintiff alleges he created a proprietary protein-bar recipe, “Best Bar,” on Dec.
- 620245/2024Plaintiff Frank Tufano, pro se, alleges that defendant Jake Levy — after placing orders for Tufano's “Best Bar” protein-bar product — copied its formulation and marketing and began selling a competing “Whey Better Bar” product through Better Life Foods Inc.
- 3:23-cv-02106Plaintiff alleges that defendant Jake Levy purchased samples of his “Best Bar” protein-bar product in 2020 with intent to copy its formula, product line, and marketing, and that Levy (through Better Life Foods, Inc., later joined by Norman and Robyn Levy) subsequently sold a “Whey Better Bar” with an allegedly identical ingredient formulation via a TikTok shop.
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
23 researched statements are linked to cases naming Robyn Levy 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 Robyn Levy, 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¶
which means whether I have to file this lawsuit every year for the rest of my life, state and federal court, these people have already spent at least $150,000 in attorney fees. So whether these people want to pay me for this idea or not…
Announces indefinite repeat filing on one dispute across state and federal court and gives the opponents' legal spend as the purpose, with their payment expressly made optional. He identifies the case by caption earlier in the same video.
Watch at 01:58 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
I filed my lawsuit last week and now I got to file a whole new separate one because I miss these guys.
Confirms a lawsuit filed the previous week over his protein bars and, in the same breath, says he now has to file a whole new separate one over the same grievance. The tracked case matching that subject matter was filed seven days before publication.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
it's it's crazy. It's crazy. I mean, it's not a big deal because I can kind of just copy and paste the lawsuit, but I don't know. You know, I might just be better off amending the You know what? I'll amend the current lawsuit. I'll add him…
The speaker weighs duplicating his pleading against amending the existing one, calling the duplicate option a matter of copy and paste, and settles on amending and adding a defendant. An amended complaint adding two defendants was filed in the matching case two days after publication.
Watch at 00:34 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
And the reason he changed his product name from Way Better Bar to Jacob Bar, is because I sued him in court. And I'm still trying to sue him in court. But guess what? If one of these corporate degenerates, these elite people, steal your…
The load-bearing quote from this video. It (a) names a tracked dispute by its product names, (b) confirms a filing already made against that party, (c) states that he is continuing to pursue further proceedings on the same grievance, and (d) alleges the judiciary will protect the opponent. The docket behind it: C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, M.D. Pa. 3:23-cv-02106, filed 2023-12-20, dismissed 2024-10-11 for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, “expressly without further leave to amend”), then C093 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed 2024-11-14 — 34 days later — and pending on this date), then C036 (Lackawanna, 2026-03-09) and C068 (M.D. Pa., 2026-04-13). The case tracker records that C093's own December 2025 filing “states he had been attempting service since 'the previous lawsuit'” and attaches service records identifying C039 — which the tracker treats as supporting the refiling relationship. So “I'm still trying to sue him in court,” said in June 2025, sits between two rounds of that sequence and 275 days before the next one. Why Strong, written out so the call is auditable: the Strong rubric requires a tracked case or dispute and core filing conduct. The dispute is named via the product names, which the statement record already resolves to the Levy defendants, and “I sued him in court… and I'm still trying to sue him in court” describes continuing to litigate a grievance already litigated — the core factor Repeat filing on the same dispute — alongside a confirmed filing. A more conservative reading would take “still trying to sue him” as effort inside the then-pending C093 rather than a further action and classify this as Moderate (Filing announced or confirmed; Threatened or prospective filing); the Strong classification rests on the continued-pursuit reading, and the alternative is recorded here so the tier can be revisited without re-watching.
Watch at 00:46 — youtube.com ↗Litigation motive / cost imposition¶
But anyway, have fun paying your attorney, buddy.
The video's closing line, addressed directly to the competitor he has just said he intends to add to the lawsuit, framing the legal fees that competitor will have to pay as the payoff.
Watch at 01:42 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
I'm glad I didn't file my lawsuit yet because I guess this is another defendant. This is getting insane. I asked you guys, if you know anyone else copying my bars, please let me know.
The speaker states that his lawsuit is prepared but not yet filed, that a newly identified competitor will be added as a defendant, and asks viewers to report further copycats to him. A tracked case in this dispute was filed three days after publication.
Watch at 00:42 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement / stated motive¶
So, I was about to file my lawsuit against Jacob Bar and Prima Bar for theft of trade secret for stealing my best bar formula. And I saw Santa Cruz was launching his protein bar in March. And I had this weird hunch. I was like, you know…
A first-person account of filing strategy: a trade-secret complaint already prepared against two named brands, deliberately held back on a hunch so a further anticipated infringer could be added as a defendant. C036 was filed five days after publication naming both entities discussed.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
another one of these degenerates will copy the idea and do it and point it off [= pawn it off] as their own hey then I'll just get to file another Federal lawsuit got a little more free time boys that's why that's why I'm not down here…
The speaker names a condition under which he would file — a competitor copying one of his product ideas and passing it off as their own — and calls the response "another Federal lawsuit", the word another indicating a federal action already on file. It is his own prospective filing conduct, not a docket fact and not the opponent's behaviour, which is what distinguishes it from everything else in this slice. The register is sardonic ("got a little more free time boys", then the joke about studying for the bar exam), and that is recorded rather than smoothed over: it is a wry remark, not a formal announcement, and it names no case, court, docket or defendant. Tiered Moderate rather than Strong for exactly that reason — no case is identified in the words themselves, and Threatened or prospective filing is not one of the three core factors. (Tier: Moderate — Threatened or prospective filing)
Watch at 09:10 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
because these companies have put their product in stores and on Amazon, that means I'm also suing every single platform that has promoted them from the actual sales channels like Amazon… And in addition to that, when these people promote…
States a method for growing the defendant list, joining the retailers that stock the product and the platforms that carry the promotion, and gives his own count of about twelve defendants. Two entities he names as sued are not on the docket and his count is lower than the docketed number, so this is what he said rather than a source for who the defendants are.
Watch at 01:20 — 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 ↗Filing announcement¶
You guys can stay updated on the lawsuit if you search Tofano versus Better Life Foods, Inc. Better Life Foods, Inc. is the Jacob Bars Operating LLC.
He identifies the tracked case by its caption, which the auto-captions render as Tofano versus Better Life Foods, and directs viewers to follow it. This removes the usual guesswork about which matter a video concerns.
Watch at 01:07 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
Unfortunately, we had to file this lawsuit the other week against all these people who copied me.
Dates the filing to "the other week" — consistent with C036's recorded filing date of 2026-03-09, twelve days before this video. "Had to file" frames the suit as compelled rather than chosen, the same framing used in “Tufano v. Taban et al 3:25-cv-00011” about the pro se malpractice filing ("I don't really have a choice but to file the lawsuit myself").
Watch at 00:17 — youtube.com ↗Claim / pleading description¶
Better Life Foods is the Jacob Bar, which is also Jake Levy, Norman Levy, and Robin Levy. Eid Prima, I think, is actually Jacob Bar's new branding. Santa Cruz Paleo and Brendan R are Santa Cruz's bar. Power Puck is a whole separate bar.…
Independently confirms C036/C068's defendant list almost item-for-item, and
Watch at 00:20 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
this kid Jake Levy completely copied my best bar and has been selling it for over 6 months now identical like carbon copy exactly like tea for tea recipe marketing flavors every single thing I've been selling those bars since November of…
The earliest statement on this channel of the product-name chain in the Better Life / Levy product dispute — Best Bar → "way better bar" → "the Jacob bar" — and the only one that dates the rename and attributes a cause to it. The claims summary recorded for C039 pleads that "Jake Levy purchased samples of his 'Best Bar' protein-bar product in 2020 with intent to copy its formula, product line, and marketing" and that Levy "subsequently sold a 'Whey Better Bar' with an allegedly identical ingredient formulation"; the caption's way better bar is the ordinary whey/way homophone of the pleaded product name. Filing announced or confirmed rather than a core factor: the only filing referenced is C039 itself, already on the docket, and the sentence is about the opponent's conduct.
Watch at 01:39 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
so we filed the lawsuit back in December of last year uh toono V Levy case 3 colon 23 CV 02106 uh so to sum it up I been arguing the case jurisdiction with a federal judge for almost 6 months the jurisdiction was proven in the first filing…
The pivotal quote from this video, and the least ambiguous case identification among the statements researched from it. He speaks the docket number aloud — “3 colon 23 CV 02106” — and the case tracker records C039 as 3:23-cv-02106, filed 2023-12-20, matching “December of last year” exactly. Nothing here has to be inferred from the title, from a garbled name, or from a topical match. He then states, in the same breath, that the jurisdictional ruling is “these people protecting each other” — a forum-bias allegation attached to a specific, identified federal docket. This is a public statement, not a court finding and not a research classification; the record is that he said it.
Watch at 03:13 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
I've made about 15 filings and again kid hasn't even received the summons yet it's it's so it's so it's asinine and I've been arguing with this judge for 6 months while he has been selling These Bars
a self-reported count of docket activity, five months into C039. Self-reported filing volume was considered and deliberately DECLINED — the factor's definition is "gives his own count of how many suits he has filed", and fifteen is a count of motions and papers inside a single docket, not of actions. Labelling it otherwise would inflate a within-case procedural count into an actions count, which is exactly the error the closed vocabulary exists to prevent. The call is recorded here so a promotion pass does not silently re-make it.
Watch at 05:49 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
off with complaining but as you guys know a lot of corporate chills continually harassing my business um you know leaving fake reviews filing fraudulent charge backs just stealing from me on top of all the shadow Banning and everything and…
“Corporate chills” is a caption garble of “corporate shills” — earlier research has already established that rendering three separate ways across several other videos, and this video, published 2024-02-26, is an additional, independently-found attestation of it. The specific grievance — customers “hired” as agents of a corporate opponent to leave fake reviews, file fraudulent chargebacks, and shadow-ban the business — is the exact pleaded theory of C040 (Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, filed 2024-05-22, 86 days after this video) and the broader conspiracy-litigation cluster (C040/C047/C050/C054/C072/C095), whose claims summaries describe chargebacks, “slanderous reviews,” and a chargebacks/negative-reviews-as-conspiracy theory in nearly identical language. Earlier research on another video, published 72 days before the filing, records the plaintiff stating this theory “in his own words” before C040 was filed; this video adds another, earlier data point to that pre-filing chronology. Separately, “I've dealt with the lawsuits and everything” states that litigation is already under way at the time of this video — most plausibly referring to C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, filed 2023-12-20, pending throughout this window), though the plural is not attributed to a specific docket here.
Watch at 02:19 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
I should give you guys an update on the lawsuit but uh well sum it up short I got given a Jewish judge and then probably going to dismiss the case before anything gets done but go figure what did I expect if you guys missed that we someone…
A live-litigation update on a pending tracked case. C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, M.D. Pa. 3:23-cv-02106, filed 2023-12-20, part of the Better Life / Levy product dispute) was pending on this publish date (dismissed only on 2024-10-11), and its recorded claims summary pleads that Jake Levy "purchased samples of his 'Best Bar' protein-bar product... with intent to copy its formula" — matching this quote's "someone copied the best of our product" almost verbatim. The line predicting an unfavorable outcome and attributing it to the judge's presumed religion is transcribed verbatim, exactly as captioned; the research takes no position on whether that characterization has any basis, and it is flagged explicitly because it reflects the speaker's own stated reasoning about forum/judicial treatment rather than any court finding. The "banned... videos got taken down" clause describes a platform action (not a court ruling) and is kept in the same quote only because it is spoken in the same breath as the case update.
Watch at 17:35 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
like it's it's a little uh it's a little discouraging but what what's really discouraging and that's when I that's when I start filing lawsuits is uh is when people start copying those ideas that I like cuz cuz and I don't really want to…
The speaker states his own filing trigger in the general case — "that's when I start filing lawsuits is … when people start copying those ideas" — and then immediately grounds it in a specific grievance: "especially with the best bar that kid that copied it … he copied the exact idea exact flavors and was selling the bar for double the price that I was." That is, sentence for sentence, the grievance C039 pleads. This is the clearest statement in this slice of a stated causal rule for filing, made by the filer, in his own words, four weeks after filing exactly such an action. Note "the best bar" is spelled correctly by the captions here — the archive documents this same phrase being mangled elsewhere as Jacob Bar (from "the best bar idea") and best for idea, so this file is a clean rendering of a term that usually is not. (Tier: Moderate — Filing announced or confirmed)
Watch at 16:11 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
Of course, we have the best bars, which are the original bar that that kid copied that I still haven't gotten compensated from in court. That's a whole different story for another video.
The load-bearing quote from this video. He states, unprompted and inside a product walkthrough, that a competing product copied his protein bar and that he has litigated and not recovered ("in court"). That is a reported case outcome against him — a docket fact, not filing conduct — and it is the only reference to a court anywhere in 25 minutes. The subject matter (a copied food bar, a young competitor) matches the Better Life / Levy product dispute exactly.
Watch at 22:33 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
too much you know I I $2,000 chargebacks these other people leaving negative reviews on my business this stuff happening every week you know that that kid that stole my best for idea the court doesn't care at all
"That kid that stole my best for idea" is "that kid that stole my Best Bar idea" — C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, M.D. Pa., filed 2023-12-20), whose claims summary pleads that Jake Levy bought samples of his "Best Bar" protein bar in order to copy the formula. The sentence places the dispute in a documented chain: on 2024-07-02 the case was still live (the recorded litigation timeline shows C039 dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on 2024-10-11), and he is already saying "the court doesn't care at all" — 101 days before that dismissal and 135 days before he refiled the same dispute in New York as C093 (filed 2024-11-14), which the tracker codes as a refiling of C039 and records as a filing-restriction indicator. This is contemporaneous evidence of the dissatisfaction that preceded a coded refiling, from inside the interval, which is precisely what a docket cannot supply.
Watch at 20:44 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
You know, I'm curious if these judges in the New York State Court will ever let me prosecute this kid who stole my protein bar idea.
Places the grievance in a specific forum — the New York State Court — which matches C093 (Frank Tufano v. Jake Levy et al, New York State Supreme Court, filed 2024-11-14). the case tracker records that on 2025-08-26, roughly seven weeks before this video, the court denied his default-judgment motion because the proof of service did not satisfy CPLR 308/311/3215 and because he had signed the affidavit of service himself despite being a party. That is a concrete recent adverse ruling matching the complaint voiced here. Restated at [0:57]: "these judges won't even let me surf and" — cut off, but consistent with serve and the service defect that decided the motion.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
and now you know if you aren't in the club doesn't matter what you do on social media doesn't matter if you you know file an official lawsuit in a literal Federal Courthouse they're just going to screw you because they think they deserve…
States the reason he litigates pro se — that counsel are “all in the club” and would take “tens of thousands of dollars” to perform “the charades”. The case tracker records him proceeding pro se in C039 and in all of the 100-plus actions he has commenced; this is the speaker's own account of why. It is also the clearest statement of the “club” framing that recurs in this period — the same phrase appears in a video published ten days earlier.
Watch at 04:57 — youtube.com ↗Named alongside
Other tracked parties named in the same originating actions.
Related dispute groups
- Better Life / Levy product disputeFour docket records in the Better Life Foods and Levy dispute over competing food products, filed 2023-2026 in Pennsylvania, New York 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.