Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
35 source-backed indicators (13 classified Strong). These labels organise evidence; they do not state that a court has declared Frank Tufano a vexatious litigant. How the Strong / Moderate / Context strength labels are assigned →
Statements on the video pages carry a filing-restriction factor describing what the speaker’s own words say. This table shows which recorded criterion below each factor corresponds to, and which correspond to none. A factor is a record of a public statement; an indicator is a record drawn from a docket or an order. They are separate evidence layers and a factor is never evidence that an indicator was found.
| Statement factor | Corresponding recorded criterion | Statements |
|---|---|---|
| Repeat filing on the same dispute (core) | Same underlying dispute; same claims; same defendants; duplicative or identical-claims finding; res judicata finding | 51 |
| Filing after an adverse decision (core) | Prior adverse decision; continued filing after that decision; continued filing after a judicial warning | 20 |
| Cost imposition as stated motive (core) | No single recorded criterion — it is a stated motive for the repeat-filing criteria above, recorded only from the speaker’s own words | 18 |
| Threatened or prospective filing | No recorded criterion — a filing that has only been threatened has no docket to record | 130 |
| Self-reported filing volume | No indicator field; checked against the number of tracked cases instead | 45 |
| Filing announced or confirmed | The filing itself, where it appears as a tracked case | 127 |
| Adverse outcome described | Frivolous finding; meritless finding; frivolous-appeal finding | 97 |
| Judicial or forum bias alleged | No recorded criterion — an allegation about a court, recorded as the speaker’s statement only | 162 |
Final order adopted in its entirety an R&R that had described the litigation as marked by frivolous claims and transparent attempts at jurisdictional manipulation and found the claims without merit; amended complaint dismissed with prejudice.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗After dismissing the amended complaint for failure to state a claim without further leave to amend, the court expressly deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith.
Source — casemine.com ↗Court dismissed the case, denied further amendment as futile, and expressly deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith; the Third Circuit appeal was later dismissed.
Source — casemine.com ↗A prior order warned that failure to address the identified IFP issues could result in dismissal; after several months without compliance, the action was dismissed without prejudice.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗3:25-cv-01227 · prior case C040
Court held C054 raised claims identical to previously dismissed C040 and barred them by res judicata, collateral estoppel and issue preclusion; complaint dismissed with prejudice and amendment denied as futile.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗3:25-cv-01400 · prior case C048
R&R described a trilogy of cases raising essentially the same claims against the same defendants and expressly found C055 repeated C048's identical factual allegations. Plaintiff had been advised of pleading deficiencies in an earlier report and recommendation and did not amend; final dismissal was with prejudice. The documents held record that advice about pleading deficiencies and contain no warning to Plaintiff about his filing conduct, so no judicial warning is coded here.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗4:25-cv-01960 · prior case C055
C055 R&R identifies C059 as a third similar action against the same defendants, making identical factual allegations and raising the same claims as C055; C059 was later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗District court stated that the magistrate judge's description of Tufano as a prodigious but prodigiously unsuccessful pro se litigant was not inaccurate and noted Clerk records showing 38 M.D. Pa. lawsuits since Dec. 2023, many dismissed.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗R&R described Tufano as a prodigious but prodigiously unsuccessful pro se litigant and cited a series of earlier dismissed federal cases.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗620245/2024 · prior case C039
NYSCEF filings link the later Levy/Better Life action to federal case C039; the New York court later denied default judgment because the proof of service was deficient. The precise final NYSCEF disposal basis remains unclear.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗57677/2025 · prior case C091
The 2025 decision expressly identified C091 as related, where claims against Jeffrey Davis had previously been discontinued with prejudice; C094 was dismissed for lack of cognizable state-law/jurisdictional basis.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗3:26-cv-00840 · prior case C063
On May 14, 2026, Tufano filed a request stating that there were 'two identical Federal matters' causing confusion. The two related matters were not treated here as a refiling after an adverse judgment because the underlying complaints were filed concurrently on Feb. 23, 2026.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗The court found Plaintiff failed to provide required expert disclosures and other discovery, rejected his justification as not substantially justified or harmless, cited general lack of credibility and abundant indicia of bad faith, and excluded expert testimony under Rule 37(c)(1). This records a source-backed judicial bad-faith/credibility finding; it is not a finding that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗25SMCV05503 · prior case C101
A second California Superior Court action (25SMCV05503) naming overlapping Taban-related defendants, including ASOPRS and the Medical Board of California, was filed roughly six months after AAO's demurrer was sustained without leave and ASOPRS's service was quashed in the first action (25SMCV00041). In the second action, ASOPRS again obtained a service-quash ruling and separately argued Tufano had become a vexatious litigant based partly on the prior/re-filed litigation; the court held that determination was beyond the scope of a motion to quash and would require a separate motion.
Source — cap.lacourt.ca.gov ↗C071 (Tufano v. Eriksson et al.) named Anthony Eriksson and Taban-affiliated defendants Mehryar Ray Taban MD and Mehryar Taban MD Inc., who also appear as defendants in the original transferred Taban malpractice action (C046). The district court adopted a Report & Recommendation dismissing C071 for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied a TRO motion; Tufano's appeal was docketed at the Third Circuit as No. 26-2996 on Aug. 6, 2026.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗50710/2022 · prior case C089
C089 (Frankie's Free Range Meat LLC et al. v. Starowicz) was dismissed without prejudice on Oct. 26, 2022 after the court found no affidavit of service or other filing moving the action toward judgment, and a request to restore/stay arbitration was denied as moot. On Dec. 20, 2022, Tufano filed C090 against Adam Starowicz in the same court.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗7:23-cv-00244 · prior case C090
Two days after Starowicz reportedly moved to dismiss C090 on arbitration grounds, Tufano filed C099 in S.D.N.Y. against the American Arbitration Association, Jeffrey K. Davis, Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson. The court ordered him to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, then dismissed it without prejudice after his response.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗50058/2023 · prior case C099
The day after C099 was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Tufano filed C091 in Westchester Supreme Court against the same four defendants named in C099: the American Arbitration Association, Jeffrey Davis, Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson. C091 (together with C090) was discontinued with prejudice by stipulation on Mar. 9, 2023.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Fourteen days after a Feb. 3, 2026 R&R described three earlier Saladino-related actions (C048, C055, C059) as a trilogy raising essentially the same claims, Tufano filed C061 in M.D. Pa. against Paul Saladino, MD and Heart & Soil Supplements LLC. This entry records only the timing; it does not assert that C061 repeats the trilogy's claims.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗2026-00838 · prior case C061
A Lackawanna County Saladino complaint (2026-00838/26-cv-838) is recorded on the same date as C061's federal filing. It was later removed to M.D. Pa. as C074 and consolidated into C061's docket; the court denied Tufano's default-judgment motion as premature and ordered him to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to effect proper service.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗2025-05793 · prior case C055
A Lackawanna County Saladino complaint (C019, 2025-05793) was filed the same day, July 29, 2025, as the original federal Saladino complaint C055 (3:25-cv-01400) — the second of the already-documented C048/C055/C059 trilogy. Direct review of C019's Verified Complaint confirms all five named defendants match C055's federal caption exactly, and C019 brings Fraud, Tortious Interference, and Civil Conspiracy counts overlapping C055's five causes of action. C019 remains open with no disposition (a Motion for Default Judgment was filed 2026-02-19 but not yet ruled on); a full paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of the two complaints' factual allegations has not been performed.
Source — ic-access.com ↗2024-06106 · prior case C041
C001 (Lackawanna County, filed 2024-09-03) was filed concurrently with federal case C041 (filed 2024-07-08, same underlying Amos Miller dispute) and has continued to be actively litigated — including a 2026 motion-to-transfer-venue/order-to-show-cause sequence through June 2026 — after C041 was dismissed with prejudice on Dec. 16, 2024 on grounds the adopted R&R described as frivolous, meritless, and involving jurisdictional manipulation. Direct review of C001's Verified Complaint confirms all defendants named in C041 are also named in C001.
Source — ic-access.com ↗3:26-cv-02134 · prior case C041
C081 (M.D. Pa., filed 2026-07-29) names the identical seven-defendant caption as the dismissed C041, filed roughly 19 months after C041 was dismissed with prejudice on frivolous/meritless grounds. As of 2026-08-23 the docket is confirmed via CourtListener/RECAP -- Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella, nature of suit 320 Assault Libel and Slander, cause 28:1332, fee-paid at $405 -- with three opening entries and no response or order docketed. The complaint itself remains unavailable, so the direct comparison of C081's claims against C041's has still not been made and must not be asserted.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗3:26-cv-01018 · prior case C060
The R&R that closed C060 (adopted by the district court 2026-06-18) states in its own footnote 1 that the companion action, 3:26-cv-01018 (C073), is "raising the identical claims brought in this action." The same footnote records that Tufano paid the full filing fee in C073 and filed an Amended Complaint there at Doc. 4 on 2026-04-28. C073's own defendant field currently lists only USDA (not Weiwei Lu, who is named in C060), so "same_defendants" is recorded as substantial overlap rather than an exact match. C073's own docket remains unreachable to every independent source attempted, so everything recorded about it here derives from the C060 R&R rather than from C073's own record.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗3:25-cv-01495 · prior case C044
C056 (M.D. Pa., filed 2025-08-13) is a new original complaint against Reddit, Inc., filed about 8 months after C044 was dismissed with an express appeal-frivolous finding. IFP was granted and service held in abeyance pending screening as of the last available docket snapshot.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗2025-06513 · prior case C056
C020 (Lackawanna County) was filed the same day, Aug. 13, 2025, as the original federal complaint C056, both against Reddit, Inc. and both roughly 8 months after C044 was dismissed with an appeal-frivolous finding. C020 remains open with active motion practice (Motion for Default Judgment filed 2025-12-08; Request for Order to Show Cause 2026-06-16).
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗2026-00325 · prior case C020
C029 (filed 2026-01-22) names Reddit, Inc. -- the same core defendant as C020/C056 -- plus ByteDance/TikTok and Taban-related defendants, roughly 5 months after C020/C056. C029's own Verified Complaint expressly references companion case 2025-06513 (C020).
Source — ic-access.com ↗2025-03175 · prior case C005
C006 was filed against the identical two defendants named in C005 (PPL Electric Utilities Corp. and Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC) just two days after the court granted preliminary objections against Tufano on both defendants in C005. The 7/14/2025 Consent Petition for Final Decree itself treats the two cases as companion actions, resolving the Frontier claims in both with a single joint settlement.
Source — ic-access.com ↗3:26-cv-00879 · prior case C017
C067 (M.D. Pa., filed 2026-04-06) names Tyler Technologies, Inc. and the County of Lackawanna -- the same core defendants as C017 -- just four days after the Lackawanna County court denied Tufano's stay and recusal motions in C017 (Order, 2026-04-02). Both cases remain open and pending, each on its own appeal.
Source — ic-access.com ↗2026-00262 · prior case C027
Direct review of C028's Verified Complaint (filed 2026-01-16, two days after C027) found its account-ban allegation still refers to "TikTok" even though Google/Alphabet Inc. are the named defendants in that count -- a drafting artifact directly confirming C028 was built from C027's near-identical complaint. Both name the same Meagher Insurance Agency/Nazareth Mutual Insurance Co. defendants.
Source — ic-access.com ↗3:26-cv-02132 · prior case C008
C080 (M.D. Pa., filed 2026-07-29) names BBB, the same defendant as the just-dismissed C008, 15 days after C008's dismissal on preliminary objections. As of 2026-08-23 the docket is confirmed via CourtListener/RECAP -- Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella, nature of suit 320 Assault Libel and Slander, cause 28:1332, fee-paid at $405 -- with three opening entries and no response or order docketed. The complaint itself remains unavailable, so the direct comparison of C080's claims against C008's has still not been made and must not be asserted.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗3:26-cv-00939 · prior case C039
C036 (later continuing federally as C068) names Better Life Foods Inc. and the same three Levy defendants (Jake, Norman, Robyn) as C039, filed roughly 17 months after C039 was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Direct portal review of C036's First Amended Complaint confirms the overlapping defendant set and the added parties (Paul Saladino, Lineage Provisions LLC).
Source — courtlistener.com ↗3:25-cv-01175 · prior case C043
C014 (later continuing federally as C053) named TikTok/TikTok Inc. -- the same core defendant as C043 -- plus Lavely & Singer PC, filed about 5 months after C043 was dismissed with prejudice. In C053 the Taban defendants were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction on 2025-12-17, and a report and recommendation of 2026-04-22 then recommended that the matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect proper service on the remaining defendants. The free record held for this case ends there and carries no order adopting that recommendation, so the disposition is recorded as recommended rather than as entered, and in either form it rests on a service defect rather than on the merits.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗A footnote to the Feb. 3, 2026 report and recommendation records that "Plaintiff has filed at least twenty-two separate actions in this Court within the past two years, half of which are closed." This records a judicial statement about filing volume in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. It is not a finding that Frank Tufano is a vexatious litigant, and no filing restriction or prefiling order accompanied it. Substantially the same observation appears in the report and recommendation in C059.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗1:26-cv-05474 · prior case C057
The dispute over the 2025 wagyu shipment has now produced docket records in three separate forums. It began in Lackawanna County (C015), was removed to the Middle District of Pennsylvania (C057, one action with C015), and was dismissed there on 2026-07-13, with the claims against U.S. Customs and Border Protection dismissed with prejudice. An appeal was docketed at the Third Circuit on 2026-07-23. On 2026-09-01, while that appeal was pending, a new action naming All-Ways Forwarding was filed in the Eastern District of New York. What is source-backed is the sequence and the shared defendant, not the content of the new complaint, which is not obtainable through any free source. Strength is therefore Moderate rather than Strong: the published rubric reserves Strong for a judicial characterisation, or for a prior adverse termination together with matching claims and defendants, and the claim comparison cannot be made here. This is a research classification, not a judicial finding, and it is not a vexatious-litigant determination.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗