Eight cases updated after a full newest-to-oldest docket pass (September 23, 2026)

Every one of the 108 tracked docket records was re-checked against a live court source, working from the most recently filed case backwards. Eight cases changed. In Tufano v. Based Bodyworks (M.D. Pa.) a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on August 24, 2026 recommending that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice; the recommendation was read in full, objections were due September 8 and a brief in opposition was filed that day, and no order adopting or rejecting it has been docketed. In the Better Business Bureau case in Lackawanna County the defendants' motion for attorney's fees, filed in August, became fully contested: a motion to strike it was filed September 8 and the defendants' opposition was filed September 23. The motion is undecided. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania case the Superior Court entered an order on September 14, 2026 directing the appellant to show cause. In the Union Lodge case a defendant moved to dismiss on September 8 and the case was reassigned to a different magistrate judge on August 31. Briefing closed on the Medical Board of California's dismissal motion in the State of California case. In the PPL companion case the trial court filed two Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinions in August, which are the documents behind an order this record had previously been unable to read. Two records were corrected rather than updated: the Los Angeles County case now cites the court's own public portal instead of a subscription host a reader cannot open, and the New York Shopify case gained its assigned judge.

Three apparent findings were dropped during checking because the dataset already held them: two orders in the Google case that are already recorded as routine admissions of out-of-state counsel rather than rulings, a New York decision already recorded in three places, and a party already listed among a case's defendants. Twenty-eight cases could not be verified at all this pass and their records were deliberately left untouched rather than marked as freshly checked. The most consequential of those is Tufano v. Fenix Internet (3:25-cv-00976), where a proof-of-service deadline of August 27, 2026 has passed and no free source shows what followed.

Related cases

• 3:26-cv-00835 — Tufano v. Based Bodyworks, LLC et al
• 2025-03928 — Tufano v. Better Business Bureau
• 2026-01907 — Tufano v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
• 3:26-cv-02257 — Tufano v. Free and Accepted Masons of Union Lodge No. 291 et al
• 3:26-cv-00447 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
• 2025-03175 — Tufano v. PPL
• 25SMCV00041 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.
• 651064/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Shopify Inc. et al
• 3:26-cv-02570 — Tufano v. City of Carbondale 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
• 3:25-cv-00976 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
• 3:25-cv-01165 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC

Note

Re-checking a record is not the same as finding something in it. This pass confirmed that seventy-one cases had not moved, and it recorded twenty-eight where no public source could confirm anything either way — usually because the free federal document mirror has not caught up with the court's own docket. Those cases were left with their previous research date rather than being stamped as current, because a record that merely could not be checked should not look freshly verified.