An order counting twelve lawsuits in eighteen weeks (October 11, 2026)

Eighty-three cases were re-checked against a live court source — every case not finally closed, plus every closed case with a live appeal or an unexpired deadline — alongside a full sweep of every forum this litigant files in for lawsuits the tracker does not hold.

No new lawsuit was found anywhere, and the search was wide enough for that to mean something. The Lackawanna County General Index reconciles exactly against the tracker: thirty-eight actions under his own name and two under his companies, which is the forty on file. Separate sweeps of the index under three company-name variants returned nothing, each proved by the adjacent entries rather than by an empty result. A federal search across every district returned ten actions filed since August, all of them already tracked, and a party search of the Middle District of Pennsylvania returned fifty-three dockets, of which fifty-one are tracked and two belong to different people. A statewide New York search returned five cases, of which one is tracked and four belong to different people.

The pass found a court order the record did not hold. On July 2, 2025 a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County entered an order captioned In re Frank Tufano, docketed not to any lawsuit but to the county’s administrative-order docket, which is why earlier searches by name did not surface it. The order records that in the eighteen weeks from January 27 to June 6, 2025 he filed twelve pro se lawsuits in that court; that four were filed without a fee waiver and ten with one; and that, in the court’s words, serious questions exist regarding his allegations of poverty. Quoting the rule that lets a court dismiss an action where the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is frivolous, the court required him to present his three most recent fee-waiver petitions to a Civil Motions Court sitting en banc, and to bring his bank statements. Those three petitions concerned the actions filed on July 25, 2025. What the en banc court decided is not recorded on any docket that could be located, and the site does not say. The three complaints were docketed on the morning of the hearing.

A second order, read in full for the first time, shows a federal court reaching the same subject from the other direction. The August 11, 2026 order closing the federal Shopify action dismissed it for failure to prosecute after his fee waiver was revoked in May 2026 and the filing fee went unpaid — and it records that the revocation rested in part on his having filed numerous other actions in the same court in which he did pay the fee. The reason for that dismissal was not previously on the record.

Three cases moved. In the Meagher Insurance action an amended complaint drew three motions to dismiss, none of them decided, and a fourth defendant’s answer is due later this month. In the Masonic lodge action the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did not answer by its October 9 deadline and moved to dismiss instead. In the Hiraeth action a motion for early discovery and an order reassigning the case had both been missed.

Three records were corrected. A claim that a Memorandum and Opinion had been docketed in the Eastern District of New York action on September 24, 2026 is withdrawn: the complete docket carries one entry that day and no document of that title. The date on which a federal appeal was terminated is corrected from August 2026 to January 2026, which is what the district docket records and what this project’s own appeal entry already said. And six Pennsylvania cases filed on one day in July 2026 have had their status reworded: the free federal mirror of those dockets stopped within minutes of their filing, so the absence of later entries described the state of the mirror rather than the state of the docket.

Six appeals move from recorded-but-unverified to verified. Each was matched to the case it came from by the appellate docket’s own first entry rather than by the similarity of the caption, and each is recorded as pending as of the last entry its public docket carries, because the Third Circuit publishes no disposition without a paid account.

An audit of the parties recorded on every case whose caption suggested more defendants than the tracker held cleared all twenty-three: no case was missing a party. Three entity records were repaired — one that had merged two separate companies into a single defendant, one that held the same company under two identities, and one misspelled name.

Several questions could not be answered and are recorded as open rather than closed. Pennsylvania’s appellate court portal has refused connections from this project for four consecutive passes, so three state appeals and two missing appeal numbers remain unverified. In four federal cases the free public mirror stops months or years before the facts already on the record, so a service deadline that expired in August, a stay, an order to show cause and a conditional dismissal window that closed in early October cannot be checked without a paid account. Those are gaps in what is reachable, not findings that nothing happened.

Related cases

• 2024-06106 — Tufano v. Miller
• 2024-06107 — Tufano v. Crispino
• 2025-03927 — Tufano v. Lackawanna County Assistance Office
• 2025-04276 — Tufano v. Shopify
• 2025-04277 — Tufano v. TikTok
• 2025-05632 — Tufano v. Alibaba
• 2025-05633 — Tufano v. Lackawanna County
• 2025-05634 — Tufano v. Google
• 3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al
• 3:25-cv-00316 — Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al
• 3:25-cv-00976 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
• 3:25-cv-01165 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
• 3:25-cv-01175 — Tufano v. TikTok et al
• 3:25-cv-01227 — Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al
• 3:25-cv-01400 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
• 3:25-cv-01495 — Tufano v. Reddit, Inc.
• 3:25-cv-01558 — Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding et al
• 3:25-cv-01990 — Tufano v. USDA et al
• 3:26-cv-00835 — Tufano v. Based Bodyworks, LLC et al
• 3:26-cv-00879 — Tufano v. Tyler Technologies, Inc. et al
• 3:26-cv-00939 — Tufano v. Better Life Foods Inc. et al
• 3:26-cv-01016 — Tufano v. Eriksson et al
• 3:26-cv-01019 — Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al
• 3:26-cv-01018 — Tufano v. United States Department of Agriculture
• 3:26-cv-01667 — Tufano v. National Fire & Marine Insurance et al
• 3:26-cv-02135 — Tufano v. Crispino et al
• 3:26-cv-02136 — Tufano v. United Healthcare
• 3:26-cv-02133 — Tufano v. Hiraeth et al
• 3:26-cv-02132 — Tufano v. BBB
• 3:26-cv-02134 — Tufano v. Miller et al
• 3:26-cv-02138 — Tufano v. Experian et al
• 3:26-cv-02137 — Tufano v. Carbondale Police Department et al
• 3:26-cv-02238 — Tufano v. Meagher Insurance Agency et al
• 3:26-cv-02257 — Tufano v. Free and Accepted Masons of Union Lodge No. 291 et al
• 651064/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Shopify Inc. et al
• 805063/2025E — Frank Tufano v. Fernando Gil et al
• 809139/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Northtown Honda
• 66298/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Social Security Administration et al
• 7:20-cv-09346 — Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano
• 1:26-cv-05474 — Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding et al
• 3:26-cv-02570 — Tufano v. City of Carbondale et al
• 3:26-cv-02715 — Tufano v. Harding et al
• 3:26-cv-02976 — Tufano v. State Farm
• 3:26-cv-02977 — Tufano v. Google LLC

Note

No court has made a vexatious-litigant determination about this litigant, and nothing in this update records one. The July 2025 order described here questioned the fee-waiver petitions supporting ten lawsuits and required a hearing; what that hearing decided is not on any public docket this project could reach.