Lackawanna County / Tyler Technologies parallel litigation chronology
Four days after the Lackawanna County court denied Tufano's stay and recusal motions in his state Board of Assessment appeal against Lackawanna County/Tyler Technologies (C017), he filed a federal complaint (C067) against the same core defendants (Tyler Technologies, Inc. and the County of Lackawanna). Both actions remain open, each now with its own pending appeal.
The 4/2/2026 Order denying the stay/recusal motions, directly reviewed via the LPA Prothonotary portal, and C067's current PacerMonitor docket confirming its 4/6/2026 filing date.
Research assessment
The four-day gap between C017's adverse procedural ruling and C067's federal filing against overlapping defendants is a well-documented timing pattern. Neither case has been decided on the merits; both are still pending, each on a separate procedural/interlocutory appeal.
Important caveat
This is not a merits relitigation pattern like the Saladino or Miller sequences -- C017's underlying Board of Assessment appeal has not been decided, and C067's R&R adoption denied only emergency injunctive relief, not the case itself. Neither case has reached a final adverse merits decision.
Cases in this sequence
Timeline
Tufano filed a Board of Assessment appeal (C017) in Lackawanna County against Lackawanna County and Tyler Technologies, Inc.
Source — ic-access.com ↗The court denied Tufano's motion for a stay of the real estate tax proceedings and his motion to recuse the trial judge, rejecting the recusal motion's characterization of the court's handling of his pro se filings. The underlying Board of Assessment appeal was not decided on the merits.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Tufano filed a federal complaint, C067, against Tyler Technologies, Inc. and the County of Lackawanna -- the same core defendants named in C017 -- four days after the court denied his stay and recusal motions in C017.
Source — pacermonitor.com ↗The trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion in connection with Tufano's appeal of the stay/recusal denial (Superior Court No. 723 MDA 2026).
Source — ic-access.com ↗The court adopted Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom's Report & Recommendation, denying Tufano's emergency motion for preliminary injunctive relief and motion to stay. The case remains open at the district-court level.
Source — pacermonitor.com ↗Tufano filed a Notice of Appeal from the denial of emergency injunctive relief and the stay motion, followed by a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (2026-07-15).
Source — pacermonitor.com ↗