Frank Tufano case records naming Daryl F. Bloom
3 originating actions · 3 indexed records
Cases in this index naming Daryl F. Bloom
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 20, 2026 | 3:26-cv-01016Tufano v. Eriksson et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Dismissed |
| April 6, 2026 | 3:26-cv-00879Tufano v. Tyler Technologies, Inc. et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Order adopted R&R (2026-06-25, non-final); Tufano appealed the denial of emergency injunctive relief and a stay |
| July 8, 2024 | 3:24-cv-01116Tufano v. TikTok Inc. | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Dismissed |
A case appears here because a tracked record names this judge. The listing is not an evaluation of the judge or of any ruling.
Parties named in these cases
Related dispute groups
Court & ruling records
Records naming Daryl F. Bloom, tied to an order, opinion or report and recommendation.
Record labels distinguish final orders/opinions, reports and recommendations, non-final orders, and tentative/indexed ruling records. This lists records naming Daryl F. Bloom; it is not an evaluation of the judge.
Failure to state plausible antitrust / FTCA claim (R&R)
R&R concluded the Sherman Act allegations fell far short of alleging the required agreement or conspiracy and that the FTCA provides no private right of action; it recommended dismissal with an opportunity to amend.
November 5, 2024 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗Tax Injunction Act / comity dismissal recommended (R&R)
Report and recommendation (Doc. 6) describing the claim as alleging that Tyler Technologies, Inc., in collusion with Lackawanna County, improperly inflated the value of Tufano's properties so that the County could impose a higher tax. It concluded that "the TIA precludes this Court from granting Tufano the relief he seeks," and that because the complaint asserts he was unable to use the state appeals process due to his own physical incapacitation, "there is no indication that the remedy in state court was inadequate such that federal intervention is warranted." The recommended grounds are the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1341, and the comity doctrine.
April 9, 2026 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗Personal-jurisdiction dismissal (Calder effects test); objections overruled
Adopting order (Doc. 14) reciting the magistrate judge's findings that the court lacks personal jurisdiction, that "the defendants have virtually no business in or connection with Pennsylvania," and that Tufano "failed to allege any of the defendants' conduct that was 'expressly aimed' at the Commonwealth." Objections were overruled as "unavailing," the motion was granted, the temporary restraining order denied and the case closed. The underlying report and recommendation (Doc. 12) applies the Calder effects test and records that "Tufano's complaint alleges that the Taban Defendants worked to stop Tufano from speaking out about his surgery in California." The findings recorded here are the magistrate judge's, as recited in the adopting order, which was signed by District Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. Neither document states whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
July 31, 2026 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗Judge names are grouped conservatively using the workbook's judge-alias mapping. This page indexes public records naming this judge; it is not a judicial performance evaluation.