Appellate dockets

3:24-cv-01115 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet, LLC

Docketed December 17, 2024 · Dismissed for failure to timely prosecute, the appellant having failed to pay the required fee as directed. (July 23, 2025)

Captioned 'Frank Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC'. The linkage is confirmed from the appellate docket's own header ('Appealed From: M.D. Pennsylvania (24-cv-01115)', trial judge Saporito) and an order/judgment date matching this case. Disposition verified 2026-09-10 from the district docket, M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-01115 entry 22 (2025-07-23), which recites the Third Circuit's order verbatim: 'ORDER of USCA ORDERED that the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed for failure to timely prosecute insofar as appellant failed to pay the requisite fee as directed.' The fee had been at issue from the start: on 2025-01-03 the district court certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (entry 19, Saporito, J.), and a second IFP motion followed on 2025-03-18. The Third Circuit's own docket is mirrored on CourtListener only through its case-opening entries of 2024-12-19 and shows no disposition.

3:24-cv-00846 — Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators

Docketed January 8, 2025 · Terminated by certified order in lieu of formal mandate (March 21, 2025)

Captioned "Frank Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, et al". No appeal had been recorded for this case before this was found on 2026-08-25. The certified-order form of disposition produces no published opinion, so the reason for the termination is not established.

3:24-cv-01116 — Tufano v. TikTok Inc.

Terminated (March 21, 2025)

Recorded in the case record as terminated 2025-03-21, the same day the two companion appeals from the July 2024 filings (Nos. 25-1014 and 25-1016) were resolved. The district docket records the disposition at entry 15 as a 'CERTIFIED ORDER of USCA in lieu of formal MANDATE as to 12 Notice of Appeal', with no free copy of the order available, so the form of the disposition is source-backed but the basis for the termination is not established. No separate opinion is recorded.

3:24-cv-01114 — Tufano v. Reddit, Inc.

Terminated by certified order in lieu of formal mandate. The district docket entry records only the certified order, in the same wording as the two companion appeals resolved the same day, and states no reason for the termination. (March 21, 2025)

Recorded in the case record as dismissed 2025-03-21, the same day the two companion appeals from the July 2024 filings (Nos. 25-1015 and 25-1016) were resolved. The district court's final order had expressly deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith -- a district-court certification, not a disposition by this court, which recorded no reason.

3:25-cv-01175 — Tufano v. TikTok et al

Docketed December 31, 2025 · Dismissed by certified order in lieu of formal mandate (January 22, 2026)

Docketed fourteen days after the order of 2025-12-17 that adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the Taban defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, leaving the action pending against TikTok. A district-court entry of 2026-01-22 records a certified order in lieu of formal mandate dismissing this appeal.

3:25-cv-01227 — Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al

Docketed April 1, 2026

Captioned 'Frank Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. Corp. Service Co.', confirmed from the appellate docket's header naming M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-01227 and an order/judgment date matching this case. Re-checked 2026-09-10. The Third Circuit's own docket is mirrored on CourtListener, but only through its case-opening entries, and it records no termination date. No disposition appears in any free public source, and the M.D. Pa. district docket - where a Third Circuit order or mandate would be entered on its return - is mirrored in RECAP only through 2026-02-25, the date the action was terminated below and carries no appellate entry. The appeal is therefore recorded as pending on the strength of an open appellate docket rather than a read disposition.

3:25-cv-01400 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al

Docketed April 2, 2026

Confirmed from the appellate docket's first entry naming District Court No. 3:25-cv-01400, with the report and recommendation and the adopting order attached as the documents appealed from. Re-checked 2026-09-10. The Third Circuit's own docket is mirrored on CourtListener, but only through its case-opening entries, and it records no termination date. No disposition appears in any free public source, and the M.D. Pa. district docket - where a Third Circuit order or mandate would be entered on its return - is mirrored in RECAP only through 2026-05 and carries no appellate entry. The appeal is therefore recorded as pending on the strength of an open appellate docket rather than a read disposition.

3:26-cv-00879 — Tufano v. Tyler Technologies, Inc. et al

Notice of appeal July 6, 2026 · Docketed July 8, 2026

An interlocutory appeal from the denial of an emergency motion for preliminary injunctive relief and a motion to stay - the district-court case remained open. Notice of appeal filed 2026-07-06 with the $605 fee unpaid, followed by a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis on 2026-07-15. Re-checked 2026-09-10 against the Third Circuit's own mirrored docket, which runs to 2026-07-22 and records entries of appearance for Tyler Technologies, Inc. by Daniel T. Brier and Frederick J. Lokuta plus a corporate disclosure statement, with no termination date. The appeal is live and being defended; no disposition has issued.

3:25-cv-01175 — Tufano v. TikTok et al

Docketed July 8, 2026

Confirmed from the appellate docket's own first entry, 'CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Appellant Frank Tufano in District Court No. 3:25-cv-01175' (2026-07-08). Re-checked 2026-09-10. The Third Circuit's own docket is mirrored on CourtListener, but only through its case-opening entries, and it records no termination date. No disposition appears in any free public source, and the M.D. Pa. district docket - where a Third Circuit order or mandate would be entered on its return - is mirrored in RECAP only through 2026-05 and carries no appellate entry. The appeal is therefore recorded as pending on the strength of an open appellate docket rather than a read disposition. This is the second appeal taken in this action: the first, No. 25-3580, was terminated by a certified order in lieu of formal mandate docketed 2026-01-22 (district entry 14).

3:25-cv-01558 — Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding et al

Docketed July 23, 2026

Captioned 'Frank Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding', docketed ten days after the closing order, with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed the same day. Re-checked 2026-09-10. The Third Circuit's own docket is mirrored on CourtListener, but only through its case-opening entries, and it records no termination date. No disposition appears in any free public source, and the M.D. Pa. district docket - where a Third Circuit order or mandate would be entered on its return - is mirrored in RECAP only through 2026-07-13, the memorandum order adopting the report and recommendation and carries no appellate entry. The appeal is therefore recorded as pending on the strength of an open appellate docket rather than a read disposition.

3:26-cv-01016 — Tufano v. Eriksson et al

Notice of appeal August 5, 2026 · Docketed August 6, 2026

Appeal from the order of 2026-07-31 adopting the report and recommendation, granting the Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, denying the temporary restraining order and closing the case. Re-checked 2026-09-10 against the Third Circuit's own mirrored docket: docketed 2026-08-06, with an entry of appearance filed the same day by Kimberly D. Borland for the appellees, no later entry and no termination date. Re-checked 2026-09-10. The Third Circuit's own docket is mirrored on CourtListener, but only through its case-opening entries, and it records no termination date. No disposition appears in any free public source, and the M.D. Pa. district docket - where a Third Circuit order or mandate would be entered on its return - is mirrored in RECAP only through 2026-07-31 and carries no appellate entry. The appeal is therefore recorded as pending on the strength of an open appellate docket rather than a read disposition.

3:26-cv-00542 — Tufano v. Nelson et al

Notice of appeal September 9, 2026 · Docketed September 9, 2026

Found 2026-09-10 by a party sweep of the Third Circuit; the appeal was not previously recorded and had been docketed the day before. Captioned 'Frank Tufano v. Roman Nelson'. Its first entry reads 'CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Appellant Frank Tufano in District Court No. 3:26-cv-00542', which is this row's case, and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis was filed the same day. The district court closed the action eight days earlier, on 2026-09-01, by an order adopting the report and recommendation and granting the motions to dismiss. There is no disposition and nothing to verify yet beyond the docketing itself.

2025-05632 — Tufano v. Alibaba

Notice of appeal March 10, 2026 · Docketed May 5, 2026 · Quashed sua sponte and dismissed. The Superior Court held the order appealed from was not final because the claims against Zhucheng Kangze Machinery Co. were never adjudicated, and separately dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the $91.25 filing fee. Reconsideration denied 2026-08-21. (July 10, 2026)

Notice of Appeal filed 2026-03-10, the day after the Order of 2026-03-09 (Nealon, J.) sustaining Alibaba Group (U.S.), Inc.'s preliminary objection for lack of personal jurisdiction; docketed in the Superior Court 2026-05-05. Verified 2026-09-10 against the Superior Court's own appeal docket sheet, whose DISPOSITION INFORMATION block records a final disposition of Quash Sua Sponte, per curiam, dated 2026-07-10, with the order's reasoning set out verbatim. The court first issued two orders, on 2026-06-05 and 2026-06-18 - one directing payment of the $91.25 fee or an IFP petition, one a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed as taken from a non-final order. Tufano responded to the fee order on 2026-06-17 attaching a screenshot of a $202.91 card transaction with the Lackawanna County Clerk of Courts, which the court held 'does not correlate with the filing fee for this appeal', and responded untimely to the show-cause order on 2026-07-06 conceding that the claims against Zhucheng 'were never addressed by the lower court'. An Application for Reconsideration filed 2026-08-12 was denied 2026-08-21 for want of jurisdiction.

2025-05633 — Tufano v. Lackawanna County

Notice of appeal April 6, 2026 · Docketed May 5, 2026 · Quashed sua sponte and dismissed. The Superior Court held that an order denying recusal and an order denying a stay are interlocutory and not appealable, quashed the appeal after Tufano did not respond to its rule to show cause, and separately dismissed it for failure to pay the $91.25 filing fee. The rule to show cause had also raised, as a ground on which it directed him to show cause, that appellate jurisdiction over tort claims against a local agency lies exclusively in the Commonwealth Court under 42 Pa.C.S.A. 762(a)(7); the court did not rest its disposition on that ground. Reconsideration denied 2026-08-21. (July 10, 2026)

An interlocutory appeal from the Order of 2026-04-02 (James A. Gibbons, P.J.) denying a stay and denying recusal of the trial judge - not from a final judgment. Notice of Appeal filed 2026-04-06; docketed in the Superior Court 2026-05-05. Verified 2026-09-10 against the Superior Court's own appeal docket sheet, whose DISPOSITION INFORMATION block records a final disposition of Quash Sua Sponte, per curiam, dated 2026-07-10, with the order's reasoning set out verbatim. The rule to show cause of 2026-06-05 raised two grounds - that the appeal belonged in the Commonwealth Court because the complaint pleaded fraud and civil conspiracy against Lackawanna County, a local agency, and that an order denying recusal or a stay is not appealable - and Tufano did not respond to it. A separate order of the same date directed payment of the $91.25 fee; his 2026-06-17 response attached a $202.91 Lackawanna County card transaction the court held did not correlate with this appeal's fee. An Application for Reconsideration filed 2026-08-12 was denied 2026-08-21 for want of jurisdiction. The underlying Board of Assessment action continues in the trial court.

2025-03928 — Tufano v. Better Business Bureau

Notice of appeal July 20, 2026 · Docketed July 27, 2026

Pro se Notice of Appeal filed 2026-07-20 from the Memorandum and Order of 2026-07-14 (Hon. James A. Gibbons, P.J.) sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing the complaint; docketed in the Superior Court 2026-07-27. Verified 2026-09-10 against the Superior Court's own appeal docket sheet: case status Active, trial court record and Rule 1925(a) opinion received 2026-08-21, a Pa.R.A.P. 1931(d) letter sent the same day regarding missing items in the record, briefing schedule issued, and appellant's brief and reproduced record due 2026-09-30. The $91.25 filing fee was unpaid until 2026-08-20, after an Outstanding Invoice Letter of 2026-08-12. The Superior Court records this appeal as related to Nos. 1155 and 1156 MDA 2026 on a similar-issues basis. Note: the trial judge is James A. Gibbons; an earlier version of this record read "Terrence Gibbons", conflating him with Terrence R. Nealon.

2026-01907 — Tufano v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Notice of appeal July 20, 2026 · Docketed July 27, 2026

Appeal from Senior Judge Arthur L. Zulick's Opinion and Order of 2026-07-16 sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing with prejudice as to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (absolute sovereign immunity) and the eight individually-named judicial defendants (judicial immunity). Notice of Appeal filed 2026-07-20; docketed 2026-07-27. Verified 2026-09-10 against the Superior Court's own appeal docket sheet: case status Active, processing status 'Awaiting Original Record' with the record due 2026-09-18, no briefing schedule yet issued. The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts entered its appearance for the judicial appellees - Ruggiero, Powell, Nealon, Moyle, Jarbola, Gibbons, Dempsey and Barrasse - and the Office of Attorney General for the Commonwealth; Lackawanna County and Union Lodge No. 291 are recorded as unrepresented. The Superior Court records the case type as Toxic Tort. Related to Nos. 1154 and 1156 MDA 2026. Update 2026-09-23: the trial docket records that the Superior Court docket number was entered July 30, 2026; a statement on appeal and an emergency motion to stay real-estate tax proceedings were filed Aug. 5, 2026; a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) statement and a same-day order followed Sept. 4, 2026; and on Sept. 14, 2026 an order directing the appellant to show cause was entered per curiam. Read from the trial docket only — ujsportal.pacourts.us refused connections this pass, so the appellate docket sheet itself was not obtained.

2025-03175 — Tufano v. PPL

Notice of appeal July 20, 2026 · Docketed July 27, 2026

Found 2026-09-10 by a statewide party sweep of the Pennsylvania appellate courts on the Unified Judicial System portal, a search no prior pass had run; the appeal was not previously recorded. Captioned 'Frank Tufano v. PPL Electric Utilities and Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC' and taken from Lackawanna County 2025-03175, the docket this row's case carries. The Superior Court's own appeal docket sheet records an Order Entered below on 2026-07-14 (James A. Gibbons, P.J.), a Notice of Appeal filed 2026-07-20, docketing 2026-07-27, case status Active with processing status 'Awaiting Appellant Paperbooks', and appellant's brief and reproduced record due 2026-09-28. The content of the 2026-07-14 order was not read and is not recorded here. Appellant pro se; both appellees are recorded as unrepresented. The Superior Court records this appeal as related to Nos. 1154 and 1155 MDA 2026 on a similar-issues basis - the three were docketed the same day, on notices of appeal all filed 2026-07-20. Update 2026-09-23: the trial docket records an Aug. 4, 2026 order directing a concise statement, the statement filed Aug. 5, 2026, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinions of Aug. 7 and Aug. 11, 2026, and transmission of the record and certified docket entries to the Superior Court on Aug. 11 and Aug. 21, 2026. Read from the trial docket only — the Pennsylvania appellate portal was unreachable this pass.

3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al

Docketed July 14, 2025 · Terminated by Ninth Circuit mandate issued 2025-09-26, following a memorandum disposition entered 2025-09-04. The disposition document is not in the free public record and was not read. (September 26, 2025)

Arises from the Central District of California docket 2:25-cv-00147, to which the action was transferred, which is why it sits in the Ninth Circuit rather than the Third. Notice of appeal filed 2025-07-10 (C.D. Cal. entry 50), USCA case number notified 2025-07-15 (entry 51), appellate case opened and briefing scheduled 2025-07-14, opening brief filed 2025-08-08. Verified 2026-09-10 from the C.D. Cal. docket: 'USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order' at entry 63 (2025-09-04) followed by 'USCA Mandate' at entry 69 (2025-09-26). Both entries are titles only - the documents were never purchased into RECAP - so the fact and date of the disposition are source-backed but its reasoning is not. The Ninth Circuit's own docket is mirrored on CourtListener only through 2025-08-13.

3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al

Docketed November 30, 2025 · Terminated by Ninth Circuit mandate issued 2026-01-12, following a memorandum disposition entered 2025-12-21. The disposition document is not in the free public record and was not read. (January 12, 2026)

The second of three Ninth Circuit appeals in this action, all arising from the Central District of California docket 2:25-cv-00147. Verified 2026-09-10 from that docket's own entries: notice of appeal 2025-11-20 (entry 97), 'USCA Notification of Case Number' 2025-11-30 (entry 98), 'USCA Memorandum/Opinion/Order' 2025-12-21 (entry 99) and 'USCA Mandate' 2026-01-12 (entry 101). This supersedes the earlier note that the docketing date was 'on or about 2025-11-24' and that the appeal was not mirrored in RECAP - the district docket carries the full sequence. The four appellate entries are titles only, so the disposition's reasoning was not read.

3:25-cv-01574 — Tufano v. Google LLC et al

Notice of appeal January 5, 2026 · Docketed January 8, 2026 · Resolved by order of the Ninth Circuit entered 2026-05-28, with the mandate issued 2026-06-22. The order and mandate are recorded on the district docket by title only and were not read. (June 22, 2026)

Taken from the Northern District of California docket 3:25-cv-10825 - entry 27 (2026-01-05), 'NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Frank Tufano. (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.)', and entry 28 (2026-01-08), assigning USCA Case Number 26-146. The open question recorded on this row - whether No. 26-146 was one of the two premature appeals resolved by mandates of 2026-06-22 - was resolved on 2026-09-10 by reading that docket in full: entry 66 is an 'ORDER of USCA #26-146' dated 2026-05-28 and entry 65 an 'ORDER of USCA #26-2213' of the same date, followed by two 'USCA Mandate' entries, 71 and 72, both dated 2026-06-22. The second appeal is No. 26-2213, taken from the notice of appeal at entry 55 (2026-04-06) and now recorded separately. Both appellate orders and both mandates are docket-entry titles only and were not read, and the Ninth Circuit holds no mirrored docket for either number.

3:25-cv-01574 — Tufano v. Google LLC et al

Notice of appeal April 6, 2026 · Resolved by order of the Ninth Circuit entered 2026-05-28, with the mandate issued 2026-06-22. The order and mandate are recorded on the district docket by title only and were not read. (June 22, 2026)

The second Ninth Circuit appeal in this action, recovered 2026-09-10 by reading the Northern District of California docket 3:25-cv-10825 in full. Its number had never been recorded, which is why the appellate layer carried an open question about how many appeals arose from this action. The sequence: notice of appeal at entry 55 (2026-04-06), 'NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Frank Tufano. (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.)'; an order of 2026-04-08 stating that the notice did not stay the case and that the pending motion to dismiss would proceed; a mailed request for payment of the docket fee on 2026-04-13; then 'ORDER of USCA #26-2213' at entry 65 (2026-05-28) and one of the two 'USCA Mandate' entries of 2026-06-22, entries 71 and 72, the other belonging to No. 26-146. Both appellate orders and both mandates are docket-entry titles only and were not read.

3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al

Notice of appeal August 25, 2026

A third Ninth Circuit appeal in this action, recorded from the C.D. Cal. docket's own entries: entry 156 (2026-08-25), 'Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals', and entry 158 (2026-08-28), 'USCA Notification of Case Number'. Re-checked 2026-09-10 by reading the complete 141-entry C.D. Cal. docket: both entries are titles only and neither names the appellate docket number, and a party sweep of the Ninth Circuit on CourtListener returns only No. 25-4324 for this litigation. The number therefore remains unrecovered and must not be guessed. The two earlier appeals in this action, Nos. 25-4324 and 25-7397, each ran the same sequence - notice, case-number notification, memorandum disposition, mandate - in roughly eleven and eight weeks respectively, so a disposition on this one would be expected on the C.D. Cal. docket around late 2026.

25SMCV00041 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.

Notice of appeal July 29, 2025 · Dismissed; remittitur issued (May 29, 2026)

The earliest of three appeals from this trial-court case, all dismissed. Taken from a notice of appeal of 2025-07-29; remittitur issued 2026-05-29, the same day appeal B353291 was dismissed. A party-name search of the Second Appellate District returns exactly three appeals, all from this case -- which is also the basis for the record that no appeal has been taken from C102.

25SMCV00041 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.

Notice of appeal September 29, 2025 · Dismissed; remittitur issued (March 25, 2026)

The second of three appeals from this trial-court case, all dismissed. Taken from a notice of appeal of 2025-09-29; remittitur issued 2026-03-25.

25SMCV00041 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.

Notice of appeal February 5, 2026 · Dismissed (May 29, 2026)

The last of three appeals from this trial-court case, all dismissed. Taken from the notice of appeal of 2026-02-05, filed after the denial of reconsideration on 2026-01-14. A second notice of appeal was filed 2026-02-17 and the record does not say what became of it -- the Second Appellate District returns only these three appeals for this party.

7:20-cv-09346 — Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano

Re-checked 2026-09-10. The Second Circuit's order of 2025-08-27 was read in full from the copy filed on the district docket, S.D.N.Y. 7:20-cv-09346 entry 112: it records that Tufano appealed from a magistrate judge order of 2025-08-21, states that the order 'appears to be non-appealable' under 28 U.S.C. 1291, 1292 and 636(b)(1), (c)(1), advises that objections to the district judge were the proper route, and directs him to file a letter by 2025-09-10 either setting out the basis for appellate jurisdiction or withdrawing the appeal, failing which the appeal would be referred to a panel. What followed is not established: the district docket carries a 'USCA Mandate' entry at 120 (2026-01-22) whose document is not in RECAP and whose docket number the entry does not name, and the Second Circuit maintains no docket mirrored on CourtListener for this litigation - a party sweep of that court returns four unrelated cases. On timing, No. 25-2065 was the only appeal outstanding when that mandate issued, but the free record does not say so, and this row is left unverified rather than inferred.

7:20-cv-09346 — Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano

The lead docket of two consolidated appeals - No. 26-302 (L) and No. 26-1487 (Con). Verified 2026-09-10 from two Second Circuit orders read in full as filed on the district docket. The first, entry 129, entered 2026-04-10 by Merriam, Circuit Judge, referred Tufano's motion for a stay of the district court proceedings to a motions panel and denied an administrative stay in the meantime. The second, entry 139, entered 2026-08-12 by Bianco, Menashi and Kahn, Circuit Judges, denied his motion to stay the district court judgment underlying the consolidated appeals, citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35 (2009), and stated that 'The appeals will continue in the ordinary course' - which establishes both appeals as live as of that date. A stay has now been denied three times on the same judgment: by the district court on 2026-06-11 and by the Second Circuit on 2026-04-10 and 2026-08-12.

7:20-cv-09346 — Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano

Consolidated with No. 26-302 (L) as the '(Con)' member. Verified 2026-09-10 from the Second Circuit's order of 2026-08-12 by Bianco, Menashi and Kahn, Circuit Judges, read in full as filed on the district docket at entry 139, which is captioned '26-302 (L), 26-1487 (Con)', denies the motion to stay the district court judgment underlying 'these consolidated appeals', and states that 'The appeals will continue in the ordinary course'. The district docket carries six notices of appeal in all, at entries 69, 95, 109, 122, 132 and 136; which of the later ones opened No. 26-1487 is not established from the free record.

2025-01448 — Tufano v. PPL Electric Utilities

Notice of appeal April 21, 2025

A Notice of Appeal and an Amended Notice of Appeal followed the Order of 2025-04-21 (Powell, J.) granting both defendants' unanswered preliminary objections. Both are held in the project's document archive: the Notice of Appeal is filed-stamped 2025-04-21 and the Amended Notice of Appeal 2025-04-22. Tufano then settled with Frontier alone for $4,500 and jointly petitioned for a consent decree dismissing the Frontier claims; PPL Electric Utilities was not part of that settlement. No appellate court, docket number or disposition appears in the record.

2025-00706 — Tufano v. Motorworld

Notice of appeal January 22, 2026

Recorded from the trial-court record only. The Order of 2026-01-07 (Powell, J.) dismissed the complaint with prejudice on the Motorworld defendants' preliminary objections, and a pro se Notice of Appeal was filed 2026-01-22 arguing that the objections were never received. Neither the appellate court nor an appellate docket number appears anywhere in the record, and no appellate docket has been queried; "appeal pending" is the trial-court record's own description as of 2026-08-17.