Prior litigation filed
Paul Saladino filed the earlier S.D.N.Y. action against Tufano.
Saladino-related litigation
Analytical grouping for the original Saladino v. Tufano S.D.N.Y. litigation and later Tufano-filed cases naming Paul Saladino and closely related defendants. Judicial findings about identical allegations are recorded separately.
Cases in this group
- 7:20-cv-09346 — Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano
- 3:25-cv-00262 — Tufano v. Saladino et al
- 2025-05793 — Tufano v. Saladino
- 3:25-cv-01400 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
- 4:25-cv-01960 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
- 2026-00637 — Tufano v. Nelson
- 2026-00838 — Tufano v. Saladino
- 3:26-cv-00396 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
- 3:26-cv-00542 — Tufano v. Nelson et al
- 3:26-cv-01266 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
Dated chronology
Adverse court order
S.D.N.Y. entered a default judgment enjoining Tufano from, among other things, making public statements that Saladino copied, plagiarized, stole, or improperly used Tufano's work.
Complaint filed
Tufano filed C048 against Saladino and others alleging, among other things, that Saladino copied his work.
Case dismissed / leave unused
After an R&R recommended dismissal and leave to correct deficiencies was granted, Tufano did not file an amended complaint; C048 was dismissed without prejudice.
New complaint filed
Tufano filed C055 naming substantially the same defendants.
Third similar complaint filed
Tufano filed a third similar action against the same defendants; it also added Judge Karoline Mehalchick.
Screening warning / opportunity to amend
A screening order advised Tufano of pleading deficiencies and gave him an opportunity to file an amended complaint; he did not amend.
R&R and related dismissal
The C055 R&R recommended dismissal with no further leave to amend; on the same date C059 was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Final dismissal
District court adopted the R&R and dismissed C055 with prejudice.
Original federal complaint filed
Tufano filed C061 in M.D. Pa. against Paul Saladino, MD and Heart & Soil Supplements LLC.
Parallel state complaint filed
A Lackawanna County Saladino case (2026-00838 / 26-cv-838) is recorded on the same date as C061.
State action removed
Paul Saladino removed Lackawanna County case 26-cv-838 to M.D. Pa. as 3:26-cv-01266.
Federal actions consolidated
The court consolidated 3:26-cv-01266 into 3:26-cv-00396, denied Tufano's default-judgment motion as premature, and ordered him to show cause by June 5 why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to effect proper service.
Counsel withdrawal granted
The court granted defense counsel's motion to be relieved and permitted Tufano to proceed pro se, directing him to state by March 18 whether he would retain new counsel or proceed pro se.
Certificate of default entered
After no answer was filed to the amended complaint, a certificate of default was entered against Tufano.
Motion to vacate default denied
The court denied the motion to vacate the entries of default, finding the defendants' default willful and that they failed to show a meritorious defense.
Multiple post-default motions denied
The court denied motions to vacate the inquest, file a third-party complaint, disqualify the court/demand a trial, and stay proceedings, and struck the improperly filed third-party complaint.
Emergency stay pending appeal denied
The court denied an emergency stay pending appeal, stating that the motion largely reasserted arguments previously raised and rejected and presented no new facts, evidence or controlling authority justifying a stay.
Dispute groups are research/navigation categories. They are not judicial findings that every case contains legally identical claims.