Frank Tufano case records naming Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

DocketBird indexes an Apr. 2 minute order concerning the AAO demurrer. Separately, a mirrored tentative ruling states the court would sustain the American Academy of Ophthalmology's demurrer without leave to amend because the allegations did not establish a duty supporting professional-negligence liability. The final minute-order body has not been independently retrieved.

DocketBird indexes a May 7 minute order concerning ASOPRS. Separately, a mirrored tentative ruling states the court would grant ASOPRS's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. The final minute-order body has not been independently retrieved.

DocketBird indexes a May 7 minute order concerning the Medical Board. Separately, a mirrored tentative ruling states the court would sustain the Medical Board's demurrer without leave to amend because the complaint did not allege compliance with the applicable government-claims requirement. The final minute-order body has not been independently retrieved.

Minute order read in full (marked Page 1 of 1). At the combined case management conference and order to show cause re sanctions there was no appearance by or for Plaintiff and no communication with the Court explaining the absence. The Court recorded that there was no response to the order to show cause and no case management statement, then found that "no cause has been shown and imposes sanctions as follows: The Court orders the Amended Complaint (1st) filed by FRANK TUFANO on 09/02/2025 dismissed Without Prejudice." The same order advanced to that date and vacated all five discovery motions set for Oct. 16, 2025 (motions to compel production, admissions, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories sets one and two). This is a terminating sanction imposed by the court on its own order to show cause; it is not a monetary sanction and no amount was imposed.

An indexed July 8 ruling states the court granted ASOPRS's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. Although ASOPRS also argued that Tufano had become a vexatious litigant, the ruling states that issue was beyond the scope of the motion to quash and would require a separate motion. A separately retrieved final minute-order body has not been obtained. Source: the Los Angeles Court Access Portal register of actions for case 25SMCV05503, linked below and free to read; the register records the July 8 hearing as held and the motion granted. The portal sells the minute-order body itself, which has not been purchased.

At a case-management/order-to-show-cause hearing, with no appearance by or for Tufano, no case-management statement filed, and no proof of service on defendants, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice as a sanction: "No cause having been shown, the Court imposes sanctions as follows: The Court orders the Complaint filed by Frank Tufano on 10/23/2025 dismissed Without Prejudice."

The Aug. 19, 2026 minute order, read in full, records that an "Order Striking Statement of Disqualification; Verified Answer was signed and filed prior to this morning's hearing." The court's published document list separately shows an Order dated Aug. 18, 2026 (5 pages) and a Certificate of Mailing for "Order Striking Statement of Disqualification; Verified Answer" of the same date. Plaintiff had therefore sought to disqualify the assigned judge and the statement was stricken the day before his reconsideration motion was denied. The striking order's own text was not read - only its first page is viewable without purchase - so the fact that it was signed and filed is taken from the Aug. 19 minute order, which was read complete.

Minute order read in full (marked Page 1 of 1). Plaintiff appeared pro se by remote appearance; there were no appearances for defendants. The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Frank Tufano on 07/27/2026, stating that the motion "is Denied because it does not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008." The July 14, 2026 dismissal without prejudice therefore stands. This replaces the earlier register-of-actions entry with the order's own text and adds the statutory ground for the denial.