California/Taban concurrent duplicate chronology
The Taban dispute now spans the transferred federal case, two California Superior Court actions, a Lackawanna action removed as C066, a separate M.D. Pa. action C063, and a further Pennsylvania federal action C071 naming overlapping Taban-affiliated defendants. DocketBird exhibits in the Pennsylvania cases expose the California complaints and several state minute orders. Tufano later described the two Pennsylvania federal matters as 'two identical Federal matters.' In the transferred C046 malpractice action, the Aug. 7, 2026 ECF 152 order excluded undisclosed expert testimony and granted summary judgment for Defendant, with the dismissal temporarily without prejudice for a 60-day expert-disclosure cure window. C071 was separately dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and is now on appeal to the Third Circuit (No. 26-2996, docketed Aug. 6, 2026).
Primary/indexed court material confirms repeated defendant-specific rulings in the California state cases, improper-venue show-cause orders in Pennsylvania, and Tufano's own May 14 statement that the two federal matters were identical. In C102, the court expressly declined to adjudicate ASOPRS's embedded vexatious-litigant request and said a separate motion was required. In C046, ECF 152 also provides a final court order finding the expert-disclosure failure was not substantially justified or harmless and entering summary judgment for Defendant. The Third Circuit's own docket (No. 26-2996) independently confirms C071's dismissal was appealed and appellees have entered an appearance through counsel.
Research assessment
Strong multi-forum chronology with source-backed procedural overlap. The evidence supports close relatedness and some repeated parties/rulings, but not a blanket conclusion that every complaint or claim was identical. C071's Pennsylvania federal dismissal and Third Circuit appeal are part of the same broader Taban dispute rather than a separate pattern.
Important caveat
ASOPRS's assertion that C102 was a refiling after its prior service-quash victory is a party argument. The court did not declare Tufano vexatious in the July 8, 2026 ruling, and as of 2026-08-28 no separate vexatious-litigant motion was ever filed in that case. The $1,400 sanctions lead in C101 is resolved and negative: that tentative ruling never became an order, because the Oct. 13, 2025 minute order vacated all five Oct. 16 discovery hearings. C101 and C102 each did draw a non-monetary terminating sanction - dismissal on the court's own order to show cause - and those are recorded as court findings. C046's Aug. 7 dismissal is temporarily without prejudice; it should not be described as with prejudice unless a later docket filing/order establishes failure to satisfy the 60-day expert-disclosure cure window.
Cases in this sequence
- 3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al
- 25SMCV00041 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.
- 25SMCV05503 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.
- 2026-01161 — Tufano v. The State of California
- 3:26-cv-00447 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
- 3:26-cv-00840 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
- 3:26-cv-01016 — Tufano v. Eriksson et al
Timeline
The Taban malpractice action was transferred from M.D. Pa. and opened in the Central District of California as 2:25-cv-00147.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Tufano filed California Superior Court case 25SMCV00041 concerning the Taban medical/surgery dispute.
Source — docketbird.com ↗The American Academy of Ophthalmology obtained a demurrer ruling without leave to amend in 25SMCV00041.
Source — docketbird.com ↗The state court granted ASOPRS's motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction and sustained the Medical Board's demurrer without leave to amend.
Source — docketbird.com ↗At the combined case management conference and order to show cause re sanctions, with no appearance by or for Plaintiff, the court found no cause had been shown and imposed sanctions by dismissing the first amended complaint without prejudice. The same order advanced and vacated all five discovery motions set for Oct. 16, 2025.
Source — cap.lacourt.ca.gov ↗A second California Superior Court Taban case, 25SMCV05503, was filed.
Source — docketbird.com ↗The court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed only the Taban defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, leaving the action pending against TikTok and remanding the matter to the chief magistrate judge.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Tufano filed C063 in M.D. Pa. against the State of California, Taban and related defendants.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗A Lackawanna County complaint underlying C035/C066 was dated the same day as C063.
Source — dockets.justia.com ↗The Lackawanna action was removed to M.D. Pa. as C066.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Both C063 and C066 dockets reflect April 8 show-cause orders concerning improper venue and possible transfer/dismissal.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗The M.D. Pa. court issued show-cause orders addressing improper venue in the parallel Taban-related federal matters.
Source — docketbird.com ↗Tufano filed a request asking whether the removed action would return to state court because there were 'two identical Federal matters' causing confusion.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗At the July 6 pretrial conference, Plaintiff appeared remotely after the Court granted his request, but the order states he refused to turn on his camera. The Court learned he was proceeding without expert witnesses and vacated the July 14 jury trial.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗The court granted ASOPRS's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction in C102.
Source — trellis.law ↗ASOPRS argued within its motion-to-quash proceeding that Tufano had become a vexatious litigant; the court stated the request was beyond the scope of that motion and would require a separate motion.
Source — trellis.law ↗A public post/video stated that Taban's lawyer was arguing Tufano was medically fit for trial and framed the issue as forcing a sick patient to attend trial.
Source — instagram.com ↗Tufano filed a statement of his current physical health in the C.D. California action.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗C071 (Tufano v. Eriksson et al., naming Anthony Eriksson, Mehryar Ray Taban MD, and Mehryar Taban MD Inc.) was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction after the district court adopted a Report & Recommendation and denied Tufano's TRO motion.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗The Medical Board of California filed a motion to dismiss C063 for failure to state a claim, together with a request for judicial notice.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Tufano's appeal of the C071 dismissal was docketed at the Third Circuit as No. 26-2996; appellees (Anthony Eriksson, Mehryar Ray Taban MD, Mehryar Taban MD Inc.) entered an appearance through counsel Kimberly D. Borland, and the district court record was transmitted via CM/ECF, both the same day.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗The court excluded Plaintiff's expert testimony, denied the continuance and disqualification motions, granted Defendant's expert-testimony motions in limine, and entered sua sponte summary judgment for Defendant.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Three days after the Aug. 7, 2026 order granting summary judgment, a filing docketed as "Continue AND Disqualify Judge AND In Limine - Preclude AND In Limine - Preclude" was entered (ECF 152). Further entries followed on Aug. 14, Aug. 17 and Aug. 24, 2026.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗An order striking Tufano's statement of disqualification and verified answer was signed and filed in 25SMCV05503, the day before his motion for reconsideration was denied.
Source — cap.lacourt.ca.gov ↗The Los Angeles Superior Court denied Tufano's motion for reconsideration of the July 14, 2026 dismissal, holding that the motion did not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. The order also records that an order striking Tufano's statement of disqualification had been signed and filed the previous day.
Source — cap.lacourt.ca.gov ↗Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo ordered Tufano to file a brief opposing the Medical Board of California’s motion to dismiss by Sept. 3, 2026, failing which the motion could be deemed unopposed and the action dismissed under Rule 41.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Tufano filed his brief in opposition to the Medical Board of California’s motion to dismiss, ten days before the deadline. Briefing is complete and no ruling has issued.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗A notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit was docketed in the C.D. California action as entry 156, followed by entry 157 (Aug. 27, "Vacate") and entry 158 (Aug. 28, "USCA Notification of Case Number"). This is a third Ninth Circuit appeal in this action, after Nos. 25-4324 and 25-7397.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Primary source
Open primary source — docketbird.com ↗Cite this page
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "California/Taban concurrent duplicate chronology". Research last verified August 28, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/research/california-taban-concurrent-duplicate-chronology/