Frank Tufano case records naming James A. Gibbons
4 originating actions · 4 indexed records
Cases in this index naming James A. Gibbons
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| December 3, 2025 | 2025-09609Tufano v. United Healthcare | Lackawanna County | Pending; Consolidated Order (2026-04-21) denied venue-transfer motion; Motion for Default Judgment (2026-01-30) and Request for Order to Show Cause (2026-06-16) still pending |
| August 13, 2025 | 2025-06513Tufano v. Reddit Inc | Lackawanna County | Pending; Consolidated Order (2026-04-21) denied venue-transfer motion; Motion for Default Judgment (2025-12-08) and Request for Order to Show Cause (2026-06-16) still pending |
| July 25, 2025 | 2025-05633Tufano v. Lackawanna County | Lackawanna County | Motions for stay and recusal denied; procedural appeal pending; underlying Board of Assessment appeal not yet decided on the merits |
| May 27, 2025 | 2025-03928Tufano v. Better Business Bureau | Lackawanna County | Complaint dismissed on preliminary objections; appeal pending |
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 James A. Gibbons, 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 James A. Gibbons; it is not an evaluation of the judge.
Motions for stay and recusal denied
Order dated 2026-04-02 (Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, No. 25-CV-5633), signed by James A. Gibbons, P.J., denies Tufano's motion for a stay of the real estate tax proceedings and his motion to recuse the trial judge. The order recounts that Tufano was given thirty days to amend his complaint (sufficient time to transfer title on the properties at issue) and rejects the recusal motion's characterization of the court's handling of his pro se filings. This ruling is procedural; the underlying Board of Assessment appeal against Lackawanna County and Tyler Technologies, Inc. was not decided on the merits. Tufano appealed the denial; docketed at the Superior Court of Pennsylvania as No. 723 MDA 2026.
April 2, 2026 ruling source — ic-access.com ↗Motion to Transfer Venue denied (Order)
Consolidated order ruling on three of Tufano's Motions to Transfer Venue at once, all filed 2026-04-14 and each seeking transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania: case nos. 2025-CV-3928 (C008), 2025-CV-6513 (this case), and 2025-CV-9609 (C024). The order finds the motions "do not reflect proper service on any of the defendants" and that the court found "no mechanism by which a plaintiff may accomplish such a 'transfer.'" All three motions were DENIED.
April 21, 2026 ruling source — ic-access.com ↗Motion to Transfer Venue denied (Order)
Consolidated order ruling on three of Tufano's Motions to Transfer Venue at once, all filed 2026-04-14 and each seeking transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania: case nos. 2025-CV-3928 (C008), 2025-CV-6513 (C020), and 2025-CV-9609 (this case). The order finds the motions "do not reflect proper service on any of the defendants" and that the court found "no mechanism by which a plaintiff may accomplish such a 'transfer.'" All three motions were DENIED.
April 21, 2026 ruling source — ic-access.com ↗Motion to Transfer Venue denied (Order)
Consolidated order ruling on three of Tufano's Motions to Transfer Venue at once, all filed 2026-04-14 and each seeking transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania: case nos. 2025-CV-3928 (this case), 2025-CV-6513 (C020), and 2025-CV-9609 (C024). The order finds the motions "do not reflect proper service on any of the defendants" and that the court found "no mechanism by which a plaintiff may accomplish such a 'transfer.'" All three motions were DENIED.
April 21, 2026 ruling source — ic-access.com ↗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.