Eighteen defendants added across four federal cases (September 15, 2026)
C083, Tufano v. Carbondale Police Department et al (M.D. Pa. 3:26-cv-02137), was recorded here with four defendants. An amended complaint docketed August 24, 2026 added seven more — JPMorgan Chase Bank, American Express, Capital One, Citibank NA, Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank NA and Discover — taking the action to eleven. All seven have been added, along with the rest of the docket activity since this case was last checked: two case-management orders on August 3, the August 31 reassignment of the case to Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo, and the September 2 appearance of the police department’s counsel, the first defence counsel in the case. A six-event chronology now runs from the July 29 filing through the September 8 filing of a second action against the same municipality.
The gap had a specific cause worth recording. This case was last researched on August 23, one day before the amendment, and its source of record — the free CourtListener/RECAP mirror — has not been updated since the case was opened: checked again on September 15, it still showed only the three July 29 entries and the original four parties. RECAP mirrors only what a PACER user has already paid to fetch, so an unchanged mirror is not evidence of an unchanged docket.
That prompted a check of every other federal case whose recorded defendant list and case caption disagreed — fifteen in all, either captioned “et al” with a single defendant recorded, or recorded with a single defendant and a caption that had never been verified against the court’s own record. Three more were incomplete. C072 (Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al, M.D. Pa. 3:26-cv-01019) names six Shopify entities, not one. C105 (Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding et al, E.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-05474) names six defendants, not one: All-Ways Forwarding, Weber Solomon, US Customs and Border Protection, Eva Airways, Worldwide Flight Services and SPQR Imports. C106 (Tufano v. City of Carbondale et al, M.D. Pa. 3:26-cv-02570) has a second defendant, Douglas Calzola, and is a civil-rights action under 28 U.S.C. 1983 rather than another RICO one. Eleven defendants were added across the three, and two case captions were corrected to match the court’s. The other eleven cases checked out exactly as recorded.
Nine of those eleven parties already existed in the dataset under canonical ids from companion actions, so what was missing was the link between a party and a case rather than the party itself. The common thread is the source: each of the four gaps sat behind a docket record that was thin or frozen where it was read, and each was visible on a different free public record on the day it was filed.
Related cases
Note
No complaint in any of these four cases has been read — none of the documents is available without a paid PACER account — so the added defendants are recorded as parties named on the court’s docket and nothing is stated about what is alleged against them. That applies to Douglas Calzola in particular: he is recorded because the docket names him as a defendant, and this site records nothing else about him. No court finding, sanction or filing-restriction classification has been added by any of this work. None of the orders in C083 decides anything on the merits, and amending a complaint to add defendants is ordinary civil procedure, not evidence of a filing pattern.
Two identities are deliberately left open rather than resolved by inference. “American Express” as named in C083 is recorded as a separate party from American Express National Bank, which is suing Tufano in two Lackawanna County collection actions. And C106 remains coded “unclear” on whether it repeats C083, even though the two are now known to plead different causes of action against different defendants — docket coding is not a comparison of claims, and the published protocol requires the complaints themselves. One tracked case, C107 in the Central District of California, could not be checked because no free docket record for it has been published yet.