Lackawanna judicial-defendants / appeal chronology
C038 was filed as a separate action against multiple judges, the Commonwealth, Lackawanna County and Union Lodge No. 291 based on alleged mishandling of several earlier Tufano cases. After a failed attempt to move the state case to federal court, the court dismissed the judicial defendants and Commonwealth with prejudice and Tufano appealed.
The July 16 opinion expressly says challenges to final prior decisions not appealed were barred by collateral estoppel and that the coordinate-jurisdiction rule did not permit Tufano to obtain a different result by bringing this separate litigation; judicial and sovereign immunity independently supported dismissal.
Research assessment
Strong source-backed example of litigation directed at the judges/government after adverse rulings in multiple earlier cases, and relevant to filing-restriction analysis because the court itself characterized the new suit as an impermissible route to revisit prior decisions.
Important caveat
The court did not label Tufano vexatious or impose filing restrictions. The available order expressly dismisses the judicial defendants and Commonwealth but does not expressly dispose of Lackawanna County or Union Lodge No. 291. Appeal 1155 MDA 2026 was active in the July 28 docket.
Cases in this sequence
Timeline
Tufano filed C038 against individual Lackawanna judges, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Lackawanna County and Union Lodge No. 291, alleging that adverse rulings in several prior civil actions reflected denial of due process, conspiracy, tortious interference, fraud and civil-rights violations.
Source ↗The state court denied Tufano's request to transfer the case to M.D. Pa., explaining that federal removal law allows removal by defendants rather than plaintiffs.
Source ↗The court heard argument on the judicial defendants' and Commonwealth's preliminary objections after giving Tufano an opportunity to respond.
Source ↗The court dismissed the claims against the judicial defendants and the Commonwealth with prejudice. The opinion applied judicial immunity and sovereign immunity and also rejected attempts to revisit earlier rulings through collateral estoppel and coordinate-jurisdiction principles.
Source ↗Tufano filed a notice of appeal asking a higher court to review the case and require a jury trial. The assertions in the notice are party allegations, not judicial findings.
Source ↗Judge Zulick ordered Tufano to file and serve a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal by August 21, 2026 and warned that issues not properly included and timely served would be deemed waived.
Source ↗Pennsylvania Superior Court docket 1155 MDA 2026 was active and awaiting the original record. The docket listed 1154 MDA 2026 and 1156 MDA 2026 as related cases involving similar issues.
Source ↗