Court findings

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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-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.

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. Final adoption was not verified in this pass.

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.