Court & ruling records

3:26-cv-00835 — Tufano v. Based Bodyworks, LLC et al

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.

3:26-cv-00939 — Tufano v. Better Life Foods Inc. et al

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.

25SMCV05503 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.

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.

25SMCV05503 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.

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.

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

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.

3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al

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.

3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al

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.

3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al

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.

3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al

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.

3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al

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.

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

Adopting order (Doc. 14) reciting the magistrate judge's findings that the court lacks personal jurisdiction, that "the defendants have virtually no business in or connection with Pennsylvania," and that Tufano "failed to allege any of the defendants' conduct that was 'expressly aimed' at the Commonwealth." Objections were overruled as "unavailing," the motion was granted, the temporary restraining order denied and the case closed. The underlying report and recommendation (Doc. 12) applies the Calder effects test and records that "Tufano's complaint alleges that the Taban Defendants worked to stop Tufano from speaking out about his surgery in California." The findings recorded here are the magistrate judge's, as recited in the adopting order, which was signed by District Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. Neither document states whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.

2026-01907 — Tufano v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Opinion and Order sustained preliminary objections and dismissed the case against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (absolute sovereign immunity) and against the eight individually-named Lackawanna County judicial defendants (judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, and collateral estoppel). Following a full Lackawanna County bench recusal (one of the individual defendants was a sitting county judge), Senior Judge Arthur L. Zulick was specially assigned and issued this ruling after argument held 6/30/2026. Tufano appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (No. 1155 MDA 2026). Claims against Lackawanna County and Union Lodge No. 291 were not addressed by this order.

25SMCV05503 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.

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."

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

After reviewing the cited cases, the court said the magistrate judge's description of Tufano as a 'prodigious, but prodigiously unsuccessful, pro se litigant' was not inaccurate; the order's footnote said Clerk records showed 38 M.D. Pa. lawsuits since Dec. 2023 and that many had been dismissed.

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

Claims against EVA, All-Ways, Solomon and Worldwide Flight Services were dismissed without prejudice; claims against U.S. Customs and Border Protection were dismissed with prejudice.

2025-05632 — Tufano v. Alibaba

Superior Court of Pennsylvania, No. 711 MDA 2026. The court quashed the appeal sua sponte, holding that the order appealed from - the 2026-03-09 order sustaining Alibaba Group (U.S.), Inc.'s preliminary objection for lack of personal jurisdiction - was not final under Pa.R.A.P. 341 because 'there is no indication on the trial court docket that the claims against Zhucheng have been adjudicated', and was neither an interlocutory order appealable as of right nor a collateral order. It recorded that Tufano's untimely show-cause response conceded that the claims against Zhucheng 'were never addressed by the lower court, nor was a default ever granted'. The court additionally dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the $91.25 filing fee, noting that the $202.91 Lackawanna County card transaction he produced 'does not correlate with the filing fee for this appeal'. An application for reconsideration was denied on 2026-08-21 for want of jurisdiction. Read from the Superior Court's own appeal docket sheet, which sets the order out verbatim in its DISPOSITION INFORMATION block.

2025-05633 — Tufano v. Lackawanna County

Superior Court of Pennsylvania, No. 723 MDA 2026. The court quashed sua sponte the appeal from the 2026-04-02 order denying Tufano's 'Motion to Recuse and Stay Proceeding', holding that an order denying recusal of a trial judge is not appealable as final or collateral (Kenis v. Perini Corp., 682 A.2d 845) and that an order denying a stay is generally interlocutory (Keesee v. Dougherty, 230 A.3d 1128). Its show-cause order of 2026-06-05 had also held that because the complaint pleaded civil fraud and civil conspiracy against Lackawanna County, a local agency, exclusive appellate jurisdiction lay in the Commonwealth Court under 42 Pa.C.S.A. 762(a)(7); Tufano did not respond to it. The court additionally dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the $91.25 filing fee. Reconsideration was denied on 2026-08-21 for want of jurisdiction. Read from the Superior Court's own appeal docket sheet, which sets the order out verbatim.

25SMCV05503 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.

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.

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

Court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to effect proper service; the Clerk was directed to close the case.

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

Order (Doc. 13) adopting the April 9, 2026 report and recommendation. The court found Tufano's objections (Doc. 7) "to be unpersuasive and without merit," adopted the report, denied the pro se emergency motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 2), and remanded the matter to the magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.

66298/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Social Security Administration et al

Denied the Social Security Administration's motion for summary judgment without prejudice, for failure to comply with the Court's Individual Practices; a related motion for an extension was denied as moot the same day. Correction 2026-08-25: the moving papers, read in full, show this was not a motion for summary judgment alone. The Social Security Administration moved "for dismissal of the above-captioned complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 56." The denial was purely procedural -- "Motion denied without prejudice for failure to comply with this Court's Individual Practices" -- because the government's papers were not completely filed until 12:05 a.m. The motion was re-filed Aug. 19-20, 2026.

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

The court denied an emergency motion to stay judgment pending appeal, stating that the motion largely reasserted arguments previously raised and rejected and identified no new facts, evidence or controlling authority warranting a stay.

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

Denied Tufano's emergency motion to stay the judgment pending appeal, citing Nken v. Holder; his emergency motion to dismiss the judgment had already been denied May 27, 2026.

3:26-cv-00397 — Tufano v. Burgess

After previously ordering Tufano to provide Rule 4 proof of service, the court denied his motion for default judgment without prejudice.

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

Final judgment entered: $1 nominal damages, $52,500 punitive damages, $100,000 statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(d), $76,514 in attorney's fees, and $4,867.55 in costs; clerk directed to close the case.

3:25-cv-01990 — Tufano v. USDA et al

R&R construed Tufano's May 4, 2026 response -- stating a new complaint with additional claims had been filed and “this complaint may be dismissed” -- as a motion for voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and recommended it be granted, dismissing the action without prejudice. Footnote 1 confirms the companion action is 3:26-cv-01018 (C073), “raising the identical claims brought in this action.” The district court adopted the R&R on June 18, 2026, closing the case.

3:26-cv-01018 — Tufano v. United States Department of Agriculture

Footnote 1 of the Report and Recommendation in the companion action C060 (3:25-cv-01990) records that on April 20, 2026 Tufano filed the complaint in this action, 3:26-cv-01018, "raising the identical claims brought in" C060; that he paid the full filing fee rather than proceeding in forma pauperis; and that he filed an Amended Complaint in this action at Doc. 4 on April 28, 2026. The district court adopted the R&R on June 18, 2026, and its adopting Order cites this action in its own footnote 1. Because the case is fee-paid, no 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) screening track applies to it.

3:26-cv-00835 — Tufano v. Based Bodyworks, LLC et al

Order (Doc. 6) recording that a response to Instagram's motion to dismiss was due on or before May 6, 2026 and that Tufano had not filed one as required by Local Rule 7.6. It directed him to file a brief in opposition on or before May 27, 2026 and warned that "failure to file a brief in opposition may result in Defendants' Motion being deemed unopposed, or the dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute." This is a procedural order about briefing compliance, not a ruling on the merits.

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

Granted Google/Alphabet's renewed motion to dismiss the transferred action, with leave to amend.

2025-06513 — Tufano v. Reddit Inc

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.

2025-09609 — Tufano v. United Healthcare

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.

2025-03928 — Tufano v. Better Business Bureau

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.

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

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 26-302. On Tufano's pro se motion for a stay of the district court proceedings pending appeal, the court referred the motion to a motions panel and, 'To the extent Appellant requests an administrative stay pending decision by a panel', denied that request. Order read in full as filed on the district docket.

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

Report and recommendation (Doc. 6) describing the claim as alleging that Tyler Technologies, Inc., in collusion with Lackawanna County, improperly inflated the value of Tufano's properties so that the County could impose a higher tax. It concluded that "the TIA precludes this Court from granting Tufano the relief he seeks," and that because the complaint asserts he was unable to use the state appeals process due to his own physical incapacitation, "there is no indication that the remedy in state court was inadequate such that federal intervention is warranted." The recommended grounds are the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1341, and the comity doctrine.

3:26-cv-00447 — Tufano v. The State of California et al

The court ordered Tufano to show cause by Apr. 30 why the action should not be transferred or dismissed for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. §1406(a), warning that failure to show good cause could result in transfer or dismissal.

3:26-cv-00840 — Tufano v. The State of California et al

The court ordered Tufano to show cause why the action should not be transferred or dismissed for improper venue and directed him to respond to ASOPRS's dismissal motion; the docket also warned of consequences for failure to brief/respond.

2025-05633 — Tufano v. Lackawanna County

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.

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

Court adopted the R&R and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The short final order does not reproduce the complete reasoning from the R&R.

2025-05632 — Tufano v. Alibaba

Order dated 2026-03-09 (Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, No. 2025 CV 5632) sustains Alibaba Group (U.S.), Inc.'s preliminary objection asserting a lack of personal jurisdiction under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(1), dismisses all claims asserted against it in the Verified Complaint on that basis, and directs the Clerk of Judicial Records to enter judgment in its favor and against Tufano. Co-defendant Zhucheng Kangze Machinery Co. was not addressed. Tufano filed a Notice of Appeal the next day; the appeal is docketed at the Superior Court of Pennsylvania as No. 711 MDA 2026.

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

Court held that Tufano raised claims identical to those previously dismissed in C040 and that the claims were barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel and issue preclusion; complaint dismissed with prejudice and leave to amend denied as futile. Update 2026-08-25: the memorandum and order, read in full, also record that leave to amend was denied as futile, that 18 U.S.C. sec. 241 affords no civil cause of action, and that a forum-selection clause designating Ontario applied.

651064/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Shopify Inc. et al

Court denied the pro se motion in its entirety, stating that there was no cognizable basis to stay unidentified matters in other courts or quash subpoenas in matters not pending before it; the court also noted no affidavit showing proper service of the summons and complaint. The decision is marked non-final.

4:25-cv-01960 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al

Court adopted the R&R and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

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

R&R described C048, C055 and C059 as a trilogy raising essentially the same claims against the same defendants; it said C055 repeated the identical factual allegations from dismissed C048 and C059 again made identical factual allegations and the same claims.

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

R&R noted that the private-right-of-action defect in Tufano's 18 U.S.C. §241 theory had already been explained in an earlier case and repeated in C048/C055; it also found that he had been advised of pleading deficiencies and chose not to amend, so further amendment would be futile.

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

Footnote to the report and recommendation recording that "Plaintiff has filed at least twenty-two separate actions in this Court within the past two years, half of which are closed." This is a judicial statement about filing volume in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. It is not a vexatious-litigant determination and no filing restriction was imposed. Substantially the same observation appears in the report and recommendation in C059.

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

The court denied Tufano's motions to vacate the inquest, file a third-party complaint, disqualify the court/demand a trial, and stay the proceedings, and struck the improperly filed third-party complaint. In denying a stay, it noted the defendants had willfully defaulted and caused significant delay.

2025-00706 — Tufano v. Motorworld

Order dated 2026-01-07 (Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, No. 25-CV-706) reads in full: "upon consideration of Defendants Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint, and the response thereto, it is HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: 1. Preliminary Objections Nos. 1 and 2 filed by Defendants are SUSTAINED. 2. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE." Tufano (pro se) filed a Notice of Appeal on 2026-01-22 arguing he never received the preliminary objections because defendants' affidavit of service was fraudulent, during a period he says he was hospitalized for orbital reconstruction surgery; the appeal's outcome is not yet known.

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

Order adopting the report and recommendation and dismissing only the Taban defendants, for lack of personal jurisdiction. The action continued against TikTok and the matter was remanded to the chief magistrate judge for further proceedings. This partial disposition precedes, and is distinct from, the June 30, 2026 dismissal already recorded for this case.

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

Order transferred the remaining case to the Northern District of California; Taban defendants had been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and RealSelf dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve.

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

R&R described Tufano as a prodigious but prodigiously unsuccessful pro se litigant and cited multiple earlier federal cases that had been dismissed or otherwise adversely resolved.

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

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.

3:25-cv-00975 — Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al

Final order adopted the R&R, dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and directed the Clerk to close the case.

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

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 25-2065. The court recorded that Tufano had appealed from a magistrate judge order of 2025-08-21 and that the order 'appears to be non-appealable' under 28 U.S.C. 1291, 1292 and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), (c)(1), advising him that the order 'may be appropriate for the district judge to review upon Appellant's filing of objections'. It ordered him to file a letter by 2025-09-10 either setting out the claimed basis for appellate jurisdiction or withdrawing the appeal, failing which the appeal would be referred to a panel to determine the court's jurisdiction. Order read in full as filed on the district docket.

620245/2024 — Frank Tufano v. Jake Levy et al

Court denied plaintiff's motion for default judgment because the proof of service was deficient under CPLR 308, 311 and 3215; it also noted that plaintiff himself signed an affidavit of service despite being a party to the action.

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

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 24-3329. The district docket records the appellate 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.' Recorded from the district docket entry's own text (entry 22); the order itself was not read.

57677/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Jeffrey Davis Esq.

Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the complaint, finding no claim within its subject-matter jurisdiction, explaining that a New York Supreme Court cannot review or vacate federal court orders, and stating that the complaint's claims were not cognizable under New York law. The decision also identified C091 as a related prior action.

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

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.

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

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.

2025-01448 — Tufano v. PPL Electric Utilities

Order dated 2025-04-21 (Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, No. 2025-CV-1448) orders “that the unanswered Preliminary Objections filed by Respondents, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Frontier Utilities Northeast, LLC, respectively, are GRANTED.” Tufano (pro se) responded with a Notice of Appeal, Amended Notice of Appeal, Emergency Request for Injunctive Relief, and a Motion to Disqualify and Request for Jury Trial, all filed 2025-04-21/22.

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

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.

3:24-cv-01252 — Tufano v. Filatova

Court dismissed the action without prejudice after a prior order warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal and Tufano then failed over several months to address the issues surrounding his IFP averments.

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

A later federal R&R recounts that Saladino obtained a default judgment on Jan. 30, 2025 enjoining Tufano from, among other things, making public statements that Saladino copied, plagiarized, stole or improperly used Tufano's or another party's work.

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

Ruling on Tufano's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the dismissal of this action, the district court 'CERTIFIES that the plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith' and denied the motion. A second in forma pauperis motion followed on 2025-03-18, and the Third Circuit ultimately dismissed the appeal on 2025-07-23 for failure to prosecute, the fee never having been paid. Recorded from the district docket entry's own text (entry 19); the order itself was not read.

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

Order (Doc. 13) on an objection Tufano filed after the report and recommendation had already been adopted. The court noted the objection came "after the Court adopted the Report in its entirety," held that "[t]he right to a jury trial, whether Plaintiff was entitled to it or not, was terminated when the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim," recorded that "all the complaints were dismissed with prejudice," and ordered that the objection "is DIMISSED [sic] and the case remains closed."

3:24-cv-01117 — Tufano v. Miller et al

District court adopted Magistrate Judge Carlson's R&R in its entirety and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The adopted R&R had described the case as legally infirm, without merit, involving frivolous claims and jurisdictional manipulation. Update 2026-08-25: the order itself, read in full, dismisses the amended complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to comply with the court's Aug. 28, 2024 orders.

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

Final order dismissed the action and expressly deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith; no further leave to amend was granted because amendment would be futile.

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

Order dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim without further leave to amend and deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith.

3:24-cv-01116 — Tufano v. TikTok Inc.

R&R concluded the Sherman Act allegations fell far short of alleging the required agreement or conspiracy and that the FTCA provides no private right of action; it recommended dismissal with an opportunity to amend.

3:23-cv-02106 — Tufano v. Levy et al

R&R recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after repeated opportunities to amend; the later district order is cited as adopting the R&R on Oct. 11, 2024.

3:24-cv-01117 — Tufano v. Miller et al

R&R described the pro se case as legally infirm, said the claims were without merit, referred to frivolous claims and transparent attempts at jurisdictional manipulation, and recommended dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The district court later adopted the R&R in full on Dec. 16, 2024; that final adoption is recorded separately.

7:23-cv-00244 — Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al

After issuing an order to show cause and receiving Tufano's response, the court dismissed the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to an appropriate state-court action.

55177/2021 — FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al v. ADAM STAROWICZ

Court found no affidavit of service or other filing moving the action toward judgment, found no basis to extend deadlines, noted that the LLC could not proceed pro se, dismissed the action without prejudice, and denied the motion to restore/stay arbitration as moot.

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

The court denied the defendants' motion to vacate the entries of default, holding that the defaults were willful and that the defendants failed to present a meritorious defense.