Research methods, court/ruling records and source audits

Recommends that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and the complaint dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6), describing the secret-society allegations as fantastic or delusional and rejecting the FTC Act, Title VII, Sherman Act, intentional-infliction, defamation and civil-conspiracy claims on their merits. Read in full. No adopting order was on the docket as of 2026-09-23.

Order and accompanying memorandum denied the plaintiff’s motion to expedite discovery (Doc. 43) and granted the defence motion to stay discovery (Doc. 45), without prejudice to renewal following resolution of the pending and potentially dispositive motions. The memorandum records four such motions then pending (Docs. 10, 18, 21 and 30) and notes the case was assigned to the magistrate judge on July 29, 2026 with the referral clarified Aug. 19, 2026. Both documents read in full.

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.

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.

Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, entered on the consolidated appeals Nos. 26-302 (L) and 26-1487 (Con) and filed on the district docket Aug. 13, 2026 as ECF 139. The panel (Bianco, Menashi and Kahn, Circuit Judges) denied Tufano's motion to stay the district court judgment, citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35 (2009), and stated that the appeals "will continue in the ordinary course." The Judge field is left blank because this is a per curiam panel order and is not attributable to a single judge. This is the second denial of a stay on the same Nken ground, after the district court's denial of June 11, 2026.

The order states that shortly before the July 6 pretrial conference Plaintiff requested to appear remotely and the Court granted the request. During the hearing, Plaintiff refused to turn on his camera and cited severe, uncorroborated health issues.

The court denied Plaintiff's motion to disqualify. It found that its comments at the pretrial conference reflected an observed inconsistency in Plaintiff's explanation for refusing to appear by camera and did not establish bias or a disqualifying stake or conflict.

Plaintiff did not serve the required Rule 26(a)(2)(C) expert disclosures. The court found the failure was not substantially justified or harmless and excluded expert testimony. It cited prejudice and trial disruption, failure to provide medical records or written discovery, insufficient medical support for claimed incapacity, public video activity inconsistent with that claimed incapacity, general lack of credibility, and abundant indicia of bad faith.

The court held that expert testimony was required to establish breach and causation, that the common-knowledge exception did not apply to the alleged injury from highly invasive eye surgery, and that without admissible expert testimony Plaintiff could not prove essential elements of the claim. Summary judgment was therefore granted for Defendant.

Although summary judgment was granted for Defendant, the judgment and dismissal were made temporarily without prejudice because of the procedural nature of the ruling. Plaintiff was given 60 days to prepare and serve expert disclosures; if he cannot satisfactorily comply, the judgment and dismissal become with prejudice.