Prior litigation filed
Paul Saladino filed the earlier S.D.N.Y. action against Tufano.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Frank Tufano litigation chronology
201 dated events. Court findings, party statements and analytical relationships retain separate evidence labels.
Counsel withdrawal granted
The court granted defense counsel's motion to be relieved and permitted Tufano to proceed pro se, directing him to state by March 18 whether he would retain new counsel or proceed pro se.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Certificate of default entered
After no answer was filed to the amended complaint, a certificate of default was entered against Tufano.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗State action filed
Frankie's Free Range Meat LLC and others filed a New York Supreme Court action against Adam Starowicz.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Arbitration preliminary hearing
An arbitrator's ruling reproduced by Davis states that a preliminary arbitration hearing occurred on Oct. 25, 2021 and that Tufano was represented by counsel who confirmed the jurisdiction and appropriateness of the proceeding.
Source — daviscantor.com ↗Request to pause/stay arbitration addressed
The arbitrator language reproduced by Davis says that by email on or about Apr. 5, 2022 a prior request to pause or stay the arbitration was ruled on, with the arbitrator relying on the operating agreement's mandatory arbitration clause.
Source — daviscantor.com ↗Motion to vacate default denied
The court denied the motion to vacate the entries of default, finding the defendants' default willful and that they failed to show a meritorious defense.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗State action dismissed
C089 was dismissed without prejudice after the court found no affidavit of service or other filing moving the action toward judgment; a request to restore/stay arbitration was denied as moot.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗New state complaint filed
Tufano filed C090 against Adam Starowicz in Westchester Supreme Court.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Underlying transaction
FRM LLC, with Frank Tufano and Free Range Meat LLC as co-borrowers, executed a $246,000 commercial promissory note payable to Fidelity Deposit & Discount Bank, secured by a first mortgage from FRM LLC on 25-31 Dundaff Street, Carbondale, recorded the following day at Instrument Number 202225275.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Recorded instruments filed under the company name
FRM LLC filed two Stipulations Against Liens with the Lackawanna Prothonotary the day the mortgage was recorded - 2022-30178 with Wallis Electric Construction Co. and 2022-30179 with Crispino's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning, Inc. - both covering 25-31 Dundaff Street and both signed 'Owner: FRM, LLC - By: Frank Tufano, Sole Member'.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Underlying contract recorded
FRM LLC filed a Stipulation Against Liens with the Lackawanna Prothonotary (2022-30179) recording its contract with Crispino's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning, Inc. of Dalton, Pennsylvania for 'Refrigeration/Freezer related repairs for equipment located in a Commercial Building' at 25-31 Dundaff Street, Carbondale. It is signed 'Owner: FRM, LLC - By: Frank Tufano, Sole Member'.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Motion to dismiss state case
Davis reports that Starowicz filed a motion to dismiss C090 on Jan. 9, 2023, arguing that the dispute belonged in the pending arbitration.
Source — daviscantor.com ↗Federal complaint filed
Two days after the reported motion to dismiss C090, Tufano filed C099 in S.D.N.Y. against the American Arbitration Association, Jeffrey K. Davis, Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Show-cause order
The federal court ordered Tufano to show cause why C099 should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Federal case dismissed
After receiving Tufano's show-cause response, the court dismissed C099 without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗New state complaint filed
The next day, Tufano filed C091 in Westchester Supreme Court against the same four defendants named in C099: AAA, Jeffrey Davis, Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗State cases discontinued with prejudice
Stipulations filed March 9, 2023 discontinued Tufano's claims in C090 and C091 with prejudice.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed federal complaint C039 against Better Life Foods Inc. and Jake, Norman, and Robyn Levy.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Earlier complaint filed
C040 was filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed federal complaint C041 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Amos Miller and fundraising/media-related defendants (Fox News Network, GiveSendGo, GoFundMe, Maple Leaf Media, Off Grid with Doug and Stacy, Riverside Homestead Life).
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed federal complaint C042 against Fenix Internet LLC (OnlyFans' U.S. operating entity) over a February 2023 account ban.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed federal complaint C044 against Reddit, Inc.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed federal complaint C043 against TikTok Inc., alleging Sherman Act and FTCA claims.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗New complaint filed (concurrent forum)
Tufano filed C001 in Lackawanna County against Amos Miller and related defendants, naming the same underlying Amos Miller dispute already pending federally as C041.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed C002 in Lackawanna County against Leo Crispino and Crispino's Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Inc.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Adverse decision (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)
C039 was dismissed without prejudice for failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, after repeated opportunities to amend.
Source — casemine.com ↗Adverse decision (dismissed; appeal deemed frivolous)
Amended complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim, without further leave to amend; the order also deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith.
Source — casemine.com ↗Earlier case dismissed
The earlier Shopify-related claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Adverse decision (dismissed; appeal deemed frivolous)
Claims were dismissed as time-barred and for failure to state a claim, with no further leave to amend; the order expressly deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith. The Third Circuit appeal (25-1014) was later dismissed Mar. 21, 2025.
Source — casemine.com ↗Adverse decision (dismissed with prejudice)
District court adopted Magistrate Judge Carlson's R&R in its entirety and dismissed C041's amended complaint with prejudice; the adopted R&R had described the case as legally infirm, without merit, involving frivolous claims and jurisdictional manipulation.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Adverse decision (dismissed with prejudice)
After the court adopted an R&R finding the Sherman Act allegations fell far short of alleging the required agreement/conspiracy and that the FTCA provides no private right of action, and allowed an opportunity to amend, the case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Transfer / federal action opened
The Taban malpractice action was transferred from M.D. Pa. and opened in the Central District of California as 2:25-cv-00147.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗California state complaint filed
Tufano filed California Superior Court case 25SMCV00041 concerning the Taban medical/surgery dispute.
Source — docketbird.com ↗Motion for default judgment filed
Tufano filed the first of four Motions for Default Judgment in C002; the case remains open with no disposition entered.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed C003 in Lackawanna County against Motorworld Auto Credit Inc., Motorworld Autobody of Scranton Inc., Motorworld Automotive Group Inc., and Motorworld GM, Inc.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Adverse court order
S.D.N.Y. entered a default judgment enjoining Tufano from, among other things, making public statements that Saladino copied, plagiarized, stole, or improperly used Tufano's work.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed C048 against Saladino and others alleging, among other things, that Saladino copied his work.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed federal complaint C049 against the USDA and Weiwei Lu.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed C004 in Lackawanna County against Jeffrey Davis, Esq. Only 3 docket entries (the Verified Complaint and a companion Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, both filed the same day, plus an Affidavit of Service two months later) have been recorded, with no further activity through 8/18/2026; no disposition has been entered.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Later Davis lawsuit filed
Tufano later filed C094 against Jeffrey Davis in Westchester Supreme Court.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed C005 in Lackawanna County against PPL Electric Utilities Corp. and Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Disputed payoff (party allegation)
Tufano says he sent Fidelity Bank two payments of $115,000, totalling $230,000, intending to close the mortgage and avoid a roughly $14,000-a-year flood-insurance requirement, and that no agreement governed how the money was to be applied.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed federal complaint C047 against Shopify (USA) Inc., Lewis & Lin LLC, and "All Operating Corporations and LLC's for Shopify."
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed a parallel New York state complaint, C095, against Shopify Inc., Shopify (USA) Inc., and Lewis & Lin LLC, three days after filing the federal C047.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Case dismissed (procedural)
C049 was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a Feb. 12, 2025 order directing Tufano to pay the $405 filing fee or amend his in forma pauperis application -- a procedural (fee/IFP) dismissal, not a merits or frivolousness finding.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗AAO demurrer sustained without leave
The American Academy of Ophthalmology obtained a demurrer ruling without leave to amend in 25SMCV00041.
Source — docketbird.com ↗Adverse decision (preliminary objections granted)
The court granted the unanswered preliminary objections filed by both PPL Electric Utilities Corp. and Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC.
Source — ic-access.com ↗New complaint filed after prior adverse decision
Tufano filed a companion complaint, C006, against the same two defendants (PPL Electric Utilities Corp. and Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC), two days after the court granted preliminary objections against him in C005.
Source — ic-access.com ↗ASOPRS service quashed / MBC demurrer sustained
The state court granted ASOPRS's motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction and sustained the Medical Board's demurrer without leave to amend.
Source — docketbird.com ↗Later Davis case dismissed
The court dismissed C094, finding no cognizable claim within its subject-matter jurisdiction and explaining that a state court could not review or vacate federal court orders; the decision expressly identified C091 as related.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗New complaint filed (state court)
Tufano filed C011 in Lackawanna County against Fenix Internet LLC over the same underlying February 2023 account ban, roughly 6.5 months after C042 was dismissed with an appeal-frivolous finding.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗New complaint filed (concurrent state forum)
Tufano filed C010 in Lackawanna County against USDA and Weiwei Lu, roughly two months after C049 was dismissed on procedural grounds.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed C008 in Lackawanna County against the Better Business Bureau.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed C009 in Lackawanna County against Fidelity Bank over the disputed payoff and flood-insurance charge.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗New complaint filed (separate federal action)
Tufano filed a separate federal complaint, C051, against Fenix Internet LLC, six days after filing the state complaint C011.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed a third Shopify-related federal complaint, C050, against Shopify (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company and numerous named individuals, while C047 remained pending.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Motion for default judgment filed
Tufano filed a second Motion for Default Judgment in C002.
Source — ic-access.com ↗New state complaint filed
Tufano filed a Lackawanna County complaint against Shopify and more than 100 other named defendants.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗New complaint filed (overlapping defendants)
Tufano filed C014 in Lackawanna County against TikTok/TikTok Inc. and Lavely & Singer PC, about 5 months after C043 was dismissed with prejudice.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Case dismissed / leave unused
After an R&R recommended dismissal and leave to correct deficiencies was granted, Tufano did not file an amended complaint; C048 was dismissed without prejudice.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗State complaint filed
The July 2026 federal order states Tufano filed the All-Ways action in Lackawanna County on June 22, 2025.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Notice of removal
Fenix Internet LLC removed C011 to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where it continues as C052 (same originating action as C011).
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Notice of removal
C014 was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where it continues as C053 (same originating action as C014).
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Removal to federal court
The June 2025 state action was removed to the Middle District of Pennsylvania as C054.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Settlement / consent decree petition (as to one defendant only)
Tufano jointly petitioned the court for a consent decree dismissing all claims against Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC -- in both C005 and companion case C006 -- with prejudice, following a $4,500 settlement with Frontier (no admission of wrongdoing). PPL Electric Utilities Corp. was not part of the settlement and remains unresolved in both cases; the docket shows no order entered confirming court approval of the decree as of this check.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Settlement / consent decree petition (as to one defendant only)
The same joint Consent Petition for Final Decree, covering both C005 and C006: Frontier settled for $4,500 and consented to dismissal with prejudice in both cases; PPL Electric Utilities Corp. remains unresolved.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed a Board of Assessment appeal (C017) in Lackawanna County against Lackawanna County and Tyler Technologies, Inc.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed C016 in Lackawanna County against Alibaba, Alibaba Group USA Inc., and Zhucheng Kangze Machinery Co.
Source — ic-access.com ↗New complaint filed
Tufano filed C055 naming substantially the same defendants.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Concurrent same-day complaint filed (state court)
A Lackawanna County Saladino complaint (C019, 2025-05793) was filed the same day as the original federal Saladino complaint C055 (3:25-cv-01400). Direct review of C019's Verified Complaint confirms all five named defendants (Paul Saladino MD, Jeffrey Davis Esq, David D. Lin Esq, White Plains Lodge #473, The Illuminati) match C055's federal caption exactly, and C019 brings Fraud, Tortious Interference, and Civil Conspiracy counts overlapping C055's five causes of action.
Source — ic-access.com ↗New complaint filed (original federal complaint)
Tufano filed a second, original federal complaint against Reddit, Inc. (C056; not a removal), about 8 months after C044 was dismissed with an appeal-frivolous finding.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Concurrent same-day complaint filed (state court)
The same day, Tufano filed a Lackawanna County state complaint (C020) against Reddit, Inc. Direct review of the 39-page Verified Complaint confirms a Defamation of Character claim under 42 Pa.C.S. Sec. 8343, alleging the subreddit r/franktufano hosts defamatory posts and that Reddit banned him to favor other creators.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Removal to federal court
Worldwide Flight Services removed the state action to federal court.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Case dismissed (Rule 41(b))
The court adopted the R&R and dismissed C050 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); the final one-page order used for this confirmation did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Creditor action filed against the company
Fidelity Deposit & Discount Bank filed C103, a commercial mortgage foreclosure against FRM LLC, seeking $12,934.80 and judicial sale of the business premises.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Second creditor action filed
Two days later the same bank filed C022, a Complaint in Confession of Judgment against Free Range Meat LLC, FRM LLC and Frank Tufano individually, with $14,228.28 entered against all three on filing.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Party motion (defence)
Tufano, pro se, moved to consolidate the foreclosure with his own earlier suit C009, arguing FRM LLC is only a holding company with no cause of action against it and calling the foreclosure a 'frivolous and vexatious lawsuit' brought to 'drain his already abysmal financial resources'.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Sanction imposed (complaint dismissed on order to show cause)
At the combined case management conference and order to show cause re sanctions, with no appearance by or for Plaintiff, the court found no cause had been shown and imposed sanctions by dismissing the first amended complaint without prejudice. The same order advanced and vacated all five discovery motions set for Oct. 16, 2025.
Source — cap.lacourt.ca.gov ↗Third similar complaint filed
Tufano filed a third similar action against the same defendants; it also added Judge Karoline Mehalchick.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗New complaint filed (second federal action)
Tufano filed a second federal complaint, C060, against USDA and Weiwei Lu.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Second California state complaint filed
A second California Superior Court Taban case, 25SMCV05503, was filed.
Source — docketbird.com ↗Clerk-entered default judgment
The Clerk of Judicial Records entered judgment in mortgage foreclosure for $12,934.80 against FRM LLC on the bank's praecipe.
Source — ic-access.com ↗R&R litigation-history observation
In the Google/Taban-related case, Magistrate Judge Carlson described Tufano as a 'prodigious, but prodigiously unsuccessful, pro se litigant' and cited several earlier dismissed Tufano cases.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Creditor action filed against the company
Mohawk Global Logistics filed C104 in Lackawanna County against Free Range Meat LLC, seeking $17,428.19 in unpaid freight-forwarding charges on breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment counts.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Execution and sheriff-sale process begun
The bank filed a Praecipe for Writ of Execution for $20,651.00 together with an affidavit under Pa.R.C.P. 3129.1, beginning the sheriff's-sale process against the property.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Motion for default judgment filed
Tufano filed a third Motion for Default Judgment in C002.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Partial dismissal of Taban defendants
The court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed only the Taban defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, leaving the action pending against TikTok and remanding the matter to the chief magistrate judge.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Non-final order (action stayed pending related case)
The court stayed C052 until 30 days following resolution of the related action C051 (3:25-cv-00976). No lift-stay entry appears on the docket as of 2026-08-21, so the amended default-judgment motions Tufano filed in C052 on 2026-06-10 and 2026-06-23 were both filed while the stay was in effect.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Screening warning / opportunity to amend
A screening order advised Tufano of pleading deficiencies and gave him an opportunity to file an amended complaint; he did not amend.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Party motions (defence)
Tufano, pro se for the company, dated both a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Vacate Default Judgment. The motion to vacate reached the docket on 2026-01-08, one day before any default judgment was entered.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Second action filed by Tufano
Tufano filed C026, a second Lackawanna action against Fidelity Bank over the same December 2022 purchase and flood-insurance payoff dispute.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Adverse decision (dismissed with prejudice)
The court sustained the defendants' Preliminary Objections Nos. 1 and 2 and ordered the complaint dismissed with prejudice.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Appeal docketed
A notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit filed Jan. 5, 2026 (appeal fee unpaid) was assigned Ninth Circuit No. 26-146 on Jan. 8, 2026, as recorded on the district docket itself. No Ninth Circuit docket for this number is mirrored in RECAP and the appeal’s outcome is not established.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Clerk-entered default judgment
The Clerk of Judicial Records entered judgment by default for $17,571.61 against Free Range Meat LLC, with Rule 236 notice given 2026-01-13.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed C027 in Lackawanna County against Meagher Insurance Agency, Nazareth Mutual Insurance Co., and ByteDance/TikTok, alleging a roof/water-damage insurance dispute plus a TikTok account-ban claim.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Motion for default judgment filed
Tufano filed a fourth Motion for Default Judgment in C002. A 2026 motion-to-transfer-venue/order-to-show-cause sequence continued through 6/16/2026; the case remains open with no disposition entered.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Near-identical companion complaint filed
Two days later, Tufano filed C028 against Google/Alphabet Inc. and the same Meagher Insurance Agency/Nazareth Mutual defendants. Direct review of C028's Verified Complaint found its account-ban allegation still refers to "TikTok," even though Google/Alphabet are the named defendants -- apparently carried over from the near-identical C027 complaint.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Motion to stay sheriff sale
Tufano filed a Motion to Stay Sheriff's Sale and Rule to Show Cause in C009. The sale being stayed is the one begun in C103 on 2025-12-01 - a link the tracker had recorded as an unidentified 'related foreclosure/sheriff's-sale proceeding' until this pass.
Source — ic-access.com ↗New complaint filed (additional defendants)
Tufano filed C029 in Lackawanna County against Reddit, Inc., ByteDance/TikTok, Lavely & Singer PC, and Dr. Mehryar Ray Taban, roughly 5 months after C020/C056. C029's own Verified Complaint references companion case 2025-06513 (C020). No docket activity has occurred since the original filing.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Appeal filed
Tufano filed a pro se Notice of Appeal, arguing he never received the preliminary objections because the defendants' affidavit of service was fraudulent, filed during a period he says he was hospitalized for orbital reconstruction surgery.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Multiple post-default motions denied
The court denied motions to vacate the inquest, file a third-party complaint, disqualify the court/demand a trial, and stay proceedings, and struck the improperly filed third-party complaint.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Voluntary discontinuance with prejudice
Tufano discontinued both of his own suits against the bank, C009 and C026, with prejudice, before any ruling on the merits in either.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗R&R and related dismissal
The C055 R&R recommended dismissal with no further leave to amend; on the same date C059 was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Creditor discontinues both actions with prejudice
Four days later the bank's counsel, Cipriani & Werner, filed Praecipes for Discontinuance with Prejudice in both C103 and C022 - the same day, by the same firm, with consecutive document keys on the Prothonotary's document server.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Complaint filed (Tufano as defendant)
American Express National Bank filed a collection action, C031, against Tufano.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Original federal complaint filed
Tufano filed C061 in M.D. Pa. against Paul Saladino, MD and Heart & Soil Supplements LLC.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Parallel state complaint filed
A Lackawanna County Saladino case (2026-00838 / 26-cv-838) is recorded on the same date as C061.
Source — dockets.justia.com ↗Federal complaint filed
Tufano filed C063 in M.D. Pa. against the State of California, Taban and related defendants.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Concurrent state complaint filed
A Lackawanna County complaint underlying C035/C066 was dated the same day as C063.
Source — dockets.justia.com ↗Later action filed by Tufano
Six weeks after the default judgment against his company, Tufano filed C033 against Mohawk Global Logistics in the same court, alleging it inflated its China-to-US shipping rates.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Non-final order (motion denied)
The New York court denied Tufano's motion seeking to stay unrelated proceedings and quash subpoenas in its entirety, stating no cognizable basis was shown for the requested relief and noting no affidavit of service showing proper service on the defendants. The decision is expressly marked non-final; NYSCEF still lists the case as Active.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Final dismissal / claim preclusion
C054 was dismissed with prejudice and leave to amend was denied.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗New complaint filed (overlapping defendants)
Tufano filed C036 in Lackawanna County, naming Better Life Foods Inc. and the same three Levy defendants from C039 among many others, roughly 17 months after C039 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Adverse decision (dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction)
The court sustained Alibaba Group (U.S.), Inc.'s preliminary objection asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissed all claims against it on that basis, and directed judgment be entered in its favor. Co-defendant Zhucheng Kangze Machinery Co. (the actual seller of the equipment) was not addressed and its status, along with the general "Alibaba" entity, remains open.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Appeal filed
Tufano filed a Notice of Appeal the day after the dismissal; the appeal is docketed at the Superior Court of Pennsylvania as No. 711 MDA 2026.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Complaint filed (Tufano as defendant)
American Express National Bank filed a second collection action, C037, against Tufano, about a month after C031.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Order to show cause (fee/IFP and res judicata)
The court ordered Tufano to pay the $405 filing fee or show cause why his in forma pauperis status should not be revoked, and separately to show cause why the action should not be dismissed on principles of res judicata and issue preclusion, both by Apr. 6, 2026.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Execution on the judgment
Mohawk filed a Praecipe for Writ of Execution for $18,554.70 while C033 was pending.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Amended pleading adds defendants
First Amended Complaint confirmed the underlying dispute is a protein-bar recipe/trade-dress claim ("Best Bar") and added Paul Saladino and Lineage Provisions LLC as defendants.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Final dismissal
District court adopted the R&R and dismissed C055 with prejudice.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed C038 in Lackawanna County against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Lackawanna County, Union Lodge No. 291, and eight individually-named Lackawanna County judges.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Defendant's motion filed
Tufano filed a Motion to Dismiss and Preliminary Objections in C037, asserting improper service (by mail, not personally), a business-only credit line, no missed payments in years, and that American Express breached the agreement by abruptly lowering his credit limit. No docket activity has occurred since.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Garnishment of the company bank account
The writ was returned with monies, credit, goods and chattels attached as commanded, having been served on Fidelity Bank as garnishee together with interrogatories. The garnishee answered on 2026-03-31.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Defendant's answer and jury demand
Tufano filed an Answer and jury-trial demand in C031, asserting the credit line was for business use only and that American Express changed/lowered his available credit without notice, which he characterizes as a breach forcing him to scale back his business. No docket activity has occurred since.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Removal to federal court
The Lackawanna action was removed to M.D. Pa. as C066.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Adverse decision (stay and recusal motions denied)
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 ↗New complaint filed after prior adverse decision
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 — courtlistener.com ↗Parallel show-cause orders
Both C063 and C066 dockets reflect April 8 show-cause orders concerning improper venue and possible transfer/dismissal.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Venue show-cause orders in Pennsylvania
The M.D. Pa. court issued show-cause orders addressing improper venue in the parallel Taban-related federal matters.
Source — docketbird.com ↗Bench recusal / reassignment
Naming sitting Lackawanna County Judge James A. Gibbons among the defendants triggered a full county bench recusal; the case was reassigned to Senior Judge Arthur L. Zulick.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Notice of removal
C036 was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where it continues as C068 (same originating action as C036).
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Discontinuance against the garnishee
Mohawk filed a Discontinuance against the garnishee. The case itself remains open with no coded disposition.
Source — ic-access.com ↗New complaint filed (companion action)
Tufano filed C073 against the USDA. C073's own docket remains unreachable to every independently attempted source (PacerMonitor 429 on direct fetch and 403 in a live browser; Justia unresolved bot-challenge; CourtListener/RECAP holds only a docket shell with zero entries; Trellis and DocketBird 403; UniCourt 404), so its current status is still unverified. What is court-sourced, from the C060 R&R read directly: C073 was filed 2026-04-20 raising the identical claims brought in C060, the full filing fee was paid rather than proceeding in forma pauperis, and an Amended Complaint was filed at Doc. 4 on 2026-04-28. Its assigned judge is Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗New complaint filed
Tufano filed a fourth Shopify-related federal complaint, C072, against Shopify (USA) Inc., about seven months after C050 was dismissed.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Non-final order (venue-transfer motion denied)
A Consolidated Order (James A. Gibbons, P.J.) ruled on three of Tufano's Motions to Transfer Venue at once -- 2025-CV-3928 (C008), 2025-CV-6513 (C020), and 2025-CV-9609 (C024) -- finding the motions did not reflect proper service on any defendants and that no mechanism exists for a plaintiff to accomplish such a transfer. All three motions were denied.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Non-final order (venue-transfer motion denied)
The same Consolidated Order denied C020's Motion to Transfer Venue alongside C008's and C024's.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Non-final order (venue-transfer motion denied)
The same Consolidated Order denied C024's Motion to Transfer Venue alongside C008's and C020's.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Amended complaint filed (companion action)
Eight days after filing C073, Tufano filed an Amended Complaint in that action at Doc. 4. This is recorded in footnote 1 of the C060 Report and Recommendation, which also states that C073 raises the identical claims brought in C060 and that Tufano paid the full filing fee there rather than proceeding in forma pauperis.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗State action removed
Paul Saladino removed Lackawanna County case 26-cv-838 to M.D. Pa. as 3:26-cv-01266.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Plaintiff acknowledges duplicate matters
Tufano filed a request asking whether the removed action would return to state court because there were 'two identical Federal matters' causing confusion.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Default judgment denied without prejudice
The court denied Tufano's default-judgment motion in Burgess without prejudice after previously requiring proof of Rule 4 service.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Federal actions consolidated
The court consolidated 3:26-cv-01266 into 3:26-cv-00396, denied Tufano's default-judgment motion as premature, and ordered him to show cause by June 5 why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to effect proper service.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Trial court opinion issued
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 ↗Emergency stay pending appeal denied
The court denied an emergency stay pending appeal, stating that the motion largely reasserted arguments previously raised and rejected and presented no new facts, evidence or controlling authority justifying a stay.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Case dismissed; companion action judicially identified
The district court adopted Magistrate Judge Latella's R&R and dismissed C060 without prejudice as a construed voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41. The R&R's own footnote 1 identifies the companion action as 3:26-cv-01018 (C073), describing it as "raising the identical claims brought in this action."
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Non-final order (R&R adopted)
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 — courtlistener.com ↗R&R adopted; injunction denied
The court adopted the April 9, 2026 report and recommendation, which had concluded that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1341, and the comity doctrine precluded the relief sought, overruled Tufano's objections as unpersuasive and without merit, and denied his emergency motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Argument held
Argument on preliminary objections was held before specially-assigned Senior Judge Arthur L. Zulick.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Case dismissed (failure to effect proper service)
The court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed C053 without prejudice for failure to effect proper service. A pro se notice of appeal followed; the Third Circuit terminated the appeal on Aug. 5, 2026.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Pretrial conference / remote appearance / trial vacated
At the July 6 pretrial conference, Plaintiff appeared remotely after the Court granted his request, but the order states he refused to turn on his camera. The Court learned he was proceeding without expert witnesses and vacated the July 14 jury trial.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Interlocutory appeal filed
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 — courtlistener.com ↗ASOPRS service quashed in second California case
The court granted ASOPRS's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction in C102.
Source — trellis.law ↗Embedded vexatious request not adjudicated
ASOPRS argued within its motion-to-quash proceeding that Tufano had become a vexatious litigant; the court stated the request was beyond the scope of that motion and would require a separate motion.
Source — trellis.law ↗Public statement about trial attendance
A public post/video stated that Taban's lawyer was arguing Tufano was medically fit for trial and framed the issue as forcing a sick patient to attend trial.
Source — instagram.com ↗Final dismissal / litigation-history observation
The court dismissed the All-Ways action, mostly without prejudice but with CBP claims dismissed with prejudice.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Adverse decision (dismissed on preliminary objections)
By Memorandum and Order, the court dismissed the anti-SLAPP/statute-of-limitations preliminary objections as moot, sustained the defendant's remaining preliminary objections, and dismissed the complaint.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Plaintiff health filing
Tufano filed a statement of his current physical health in the C.D. California action.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Adverse decision (dismissed with prejudice)
Opinion and Order sustained preliminary objections and dismissed the case against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (absolute sovereign immunity) and the eight individually-named judicial defendants (judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, collateral estoppel), with prejudice. Claims against Lackawanna County and Union Lodge No. 291 (never served) were not addressed by this order and remain open.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Public statement after ruling
Seven days after the final order, Tufano publicly shared the YouTube Short titled 'Evil Judge Protects Weber SOLOMON of All Ways Forwarding'.
Source — x.com ↗Appeal filed
Tufano appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1155 MDA 2026.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Appeal filed
Tufano filed a pro se Notice of Appeal (Superior Court of Pennsylvania No. 1154 MDA 2026).
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Appeal docketed
An appeal from the dismissal of the All-Ways action was docketed at the Third Circuit as No. 26-2838, Frank Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Non-final order (default-judgment motion denied)
The court denied Tufano's motion for default judgment in C051 and set an Aug. 27, 2026 deadline for proof of service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), on pain of dismissal.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗New complaint filed after prior adverse decision
Tufano filed C081 in M.D. Pa. against the identical seven-defendant caption named in the dismissed C041, roughly 19 months after C041 was dismissed with prejudice on frivolous/meritless grounds. As of 2026-08-23 C081's docket is confirmed (filed 2026-07-29, Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella, nature of suit 320 Assault Libel and Slander, cause 28:1332, fee-paid at $405 rather than in forma pauperis), and three opening entries appear with no response or order docketed. The complaint itself remains unread, so no direct comparison of C081's claims with C041's has been made.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗New complaint filed after prior adverse decision
Tufano filed a federal complaint, C080, against BBB, 15 days after C008 was dismissed on preliminary objections. As of 2026-08-23 C080's docket is confirmed (filed 2026-07-29, Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella, nature of suit 320 Assault Libel and Slander, cause 28:1332, fee-paid at $405 rather than in forma pauperis), with three opening entries and no response or order docketed. The complaint itself remains unread, so no direct comparison of C080's claims with C008's has been made.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Complaint filed
Tufano filed C083 against the Carbondale Police Department, Shopify, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States, pleading a RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. 1962. The $405 filing fee was paid, so the action was not subject to in forma pauperis screening.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Final dismissal
C071 (Tufano v. Eriksson et al., naming Anthony Eriksson, Mehryar Ray Taban MD, and Mehryar Taban MD Inc.) was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction after the district court adopted a Report & Recommendation and denied Tufano's TRO motion.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Service deadline order / standing order
Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab entered two orders: one directing Tufano to serve the summons and complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, or obtain a waiver, within 90 days of filing and to file a return of service; the other a standing order on the use of generative artificial intelligence.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Non-final order (sur-reply struck)
The court struck Tufano's sur-reply brief and ordered him to obtain leave before filing any future sur-reply; Shopify's motion to dismiss remains pending, undecided.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Medical Board dismissal motion filed
The Medical Board of California filed a motion to dismiss C063 for failure to state a claim, together with a request for judicial notice.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Appeal docketed
Tufano's appeal of the C071 dismissal was docketed at the Third Circuit as No. 26-2996; appellees (Anthony Eriksson, Mehryar Ray Taban MD, Mehryar Taban MD Inc.) entered an appearance through counsel Kimberly D. Borland, and the district court record was transmitted via CM/ECF, both the same day.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Sua sponte summary judgment / conditional dismissal
The court excluded Plaintiff's expert testimony, denied the continuance and disqualification motions, granted Defendant's expert-testimony motions in limine, and entered sua sponte summary judgment for Defendant.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Post-order motion practice
Three days after the Aug. 7, 2026 order granting summary judgment, a filing docketed as "Continue AND Disqualify Judge AND In Limine - Preclude AND In Limine - Preclude" was entered (ECF 152). Further entries followed on Aug. 14, Aug. 17 and Aug. 24, 2026.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Case dismissed
The court adopted the magistrate's R&R and dismissed C047's amended complaint; the Clerk was directed to close the case. The docket entry description read for this confirmation did not specify with/without prejudice.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Trial court opinion issued; fee motion filed
The trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion issued the same day BBB filed a motion for attorney's fees and expenses. Both the appeal and the fee motion remain pending.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Rule 1925(a) opinions filed
President Judge James A. Gibbons filed Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinions on Aug. 7 and Aug. 11, 2026, following his Aug. 4, 2026 order directing a concise statement; the record was sent to the Superior Court the same day.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Appellate stay denied
The Second Circuit denied Tufano's motion to stay the district court judgment underlying the consolidated appeals Nos. 26-302 (L) and 26-1487 (Con), citing Nken v. Holder, and stated that the appeals will continue in the ordinary course.
Source — storage.courtlistener.com ↗Amended pleading confirmed to add matching defendants
Direct review of C001's Verified Complaint via the Lackawanna County Prothonotary portal confirmed it names GoFundMe Inc., Off Grid with Doug and Stacy LLC, Riverside Homestead Life LLC, and Maple Leaf Media LLC — all four already established on the dismissed federal case C041 — and that C001 remains actively litigated (a 2026 motion-to-transfer-venue/order-to-show-cause sequence running through 6/16/2026).
Source — ic-access.com ↗Statement of disqualification stricken
An order striking Tufano's statement of disqualification and verified answer was signed and filed in 25SMCV05503, the day before his motion for reconsideration was denied.
Source — cap.lacourt.ca.gov ↗Case terminated after transfer
The transferred N.D. Cal. action (3:25-cv-10825) was terminated: an order resolving three motions to dismiss, a Terminate Civil Case entry and a Judgment entry all appear on the docket for this date.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Reconsideration denied
The Los Angeles Superior Court denied Tufano's motion for reconsideration of the July 14, 2026 dismissal, holding that the motion did not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. The order also records that an order striking Tufano's statement of disqualification had been signed and filed the previous day.
Source — cap.lacourt.ca.gov ↗Commonwealth appears and waives service
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeared through counsel and returned a waiver of service; the waiver was sent Aug. 10, 2026 and its answer is due Oct. 9, 2026.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Order setting opposition deadline
Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo ordered Tufano to file a brief opposing the Medical Board of California’s motion to dismiss by Sept. 3, 2026, failing which the motion could be deemed unopposed and the action dismissed under Rule 41.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Discovery stayed pending dispositive motions
Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson denied the plaintiff’s motion to expedite discovery and granted the defence motion to stay discovery, without prejudice to renewal after the four pending potentially dispositive motions are resolved.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Amended pleading adds defendants
An amended complaint added seven financial institutions as defendants — JPMorgan Chase Bank, American Express, Capital One, Citibank NA, Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank NA and Discover — taking the action from four defendants to eleven.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Report and recommendation issued
Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson recommended 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).
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Opposition brief filed
Tufano filed his brief in opposition to the Medical Board of California’s motion to dismiss, ten days before the deadline. Briefing is complete and no ruling has issued.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Appeal filed
A notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit was docketed in the C.D. California action as entry 156, followed by entry 157 (Aug. 27, "Vacate") and entry 158 (Aug. 28, "USCA Notification of Case Number"). This is a third Ninth Circuit appeal in this action, after Nos. 25-4324 and 25-7397.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Bench recusal / reassignment
A verbal order reassigned the case from Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab to Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo for all further proceedings. The docket states no reason for the reassignment.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Bench reassignment
A verbal order reassigned the case to Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo for all further proceedings. The docket states no reason.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Case dismissed and closed
The removed federal action (M.D. Pa. 3:26-cv-00542) was dismissed and closed. The order adopted the Aug. 12, 2026 report and recommendation in its entirety, granted both motions to dismiss, and denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike as an objection.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗New action filed in a third forum
A new action naming All-Ways Forwarding was filed in the Eastern District of New York as 1:26-cv-05474, 50 days after the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed the same dispute and while the appeal from that dismissal was pending.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Defence counsel appearance
Andrew W. Norfleet and Coryn D. Hubbert of Marshall Dennehey entered appearances for the Carbondale Police Department, the first defence counsel to appear on this docket. No responsive pleading accompanied them.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Rule 1925(a) statement filed
Senior Judge Arthur L. Zulick filed a 14-page statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), together with a same-day order.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Later action filed by Tufano
Tufano filed C106, Tufano v. City of Carbondale et al, in the same district, six days after defence counsel appeared in C083 and 41 days after C083 was filed. It names the city itself and Douglas Calzola; C083 names the city’s police department. The fee was paid and summons issued as to both defendants.
Source — dockets.justia.com ↗Objections deadline; opposition filed
Objections to the report and recommendation were due this date and Tufano filed a brief in opposition. No order adopting or rejecting the recommendation appears on the docket.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Motion to strike fee motion filed
Tufano moved to strike the defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and expenses, with an affidavit of service.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Motion to dismiss filed
Defendant Tyler Technologies, Inc. appeared through Daniel T. Brier and Frederick Lokuta and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The motion is undecided.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Appellate order to show cause
An order directing the appellant to show cause was entered per curiam in the appeal at Superior Court No. 1155 MDA 2026.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Opposition to motion to strike filed
The defendants filed their opposition to Tufano’s motion to strike the fee motion. The fee motion is now fully briefed and remains undecided.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗