Complaint filed
Tufano filed federal complaint C042 against Fenix Internet LLC (OnlyFans' U.S. operating entity) over a February 2023 account ban.
Fenix Internet litigation
Four docket records against Fenix Internet LLC filed 2024-2025 in Lackawanna County and federal court; one is stayed pending the outcome of another.
Cases in this group
Dated chronology
Adverse decision (dismissed; appeal deemed frivolous)
Amended complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim, without further leave to amend; the order also deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith.
New complaint filed (state court)
Tufano filed C011 in Lackawanna County against Fenix Internet LLC over the same underlying February 2023 account ban, roughly 6.5 months after C042 was dismissed with an appeal-frivolous finding.
New complaint filed (separate federal action)
Tufano filed a separate federal complaint, C051, against Fenix Internet LLC, six days after filing the state complaint C011.
Notice of removal
Fenix Internet LLC removed C011 to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where it continues as C052 (same originating action as C011).
Non-final order (action stayed pending related case)
The court stayed C052 until 30 days following resolution of the related action C051 (3:25-cv-00976). No lift-stay entry appears on the docket as of 2026-08-21, so the amended default-judgment motions Tufano filed in C052 on 2026-06-10 and 2026-06-23 were both filed while the stay was in effect.
Non-final order (default-judgment motion denied)
The court denied Tufano's motion for default judgment in C051 and set an Aug. 27, 2026 deadline for proof of service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), on pain of dismissal.
Public statements by filing-restriction factor
2 researched statements connected to this dispute group 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, and not that anyone has been determined a vexatious litigant. 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 ↗Dispute groups are research/navigation categories. They are not judicial findings that every case contains legally identical claims.