Research updates - August 25, 2026 (9 items)

Saladino v. Tufano appellate order read in full: The Aug. 13, 2026 entry on the S.D.N.Y. docket in C100 was an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dated Aug. 12, 2026, denying Tufano's motion to stay the district court judgment under Nken v. Holder. Its caption establishes the appellate docket numbers as Second Circuit Nos. 26-302 (L) and 26-1487 (Con), consolidated. Research also established that this action has produced three separate Second Circuit appeals rather than one, the earliest of which drew an order stating that the ruling appealed from appeared to be non-appealable.

Tufano v. Google closed in the Northern District of California: The transferred action in C058 was terminated Aug. 19, 2026 on an order resolving three motions to dismiss, with judgment entered the same day. The record previously described the case as still open. The closing order was not available to read, so the basis for the dismissal is deliberately left unstated.

Reconsideration denied in the second California Taban action: The Los Angeles Superior Court register of actions records that C102's motion for reconsideration was heard and denied on Aug. 19, 2026, leaving the July 14, 2026 dismissal without prejudice standing. No appeal from that dismissal appears in the California Court of Appeal party index.

Continued motion practice in the C.D. California Taban case: Four further entries were recorded on C046 after the Aug. 7, 2026 summary-judgment order, including a filing docketed as a motion to disqualify the judge three days later and a further entry on Aug. 24, 2026. All are recorded as docket-entry titles only -- none of the underlying documents was available to read.

Seven previously unrecorded appeals identified and linked to their cases: Appellate docket numbers were established for C040 (Third Circuit No. 25-1016), C042 (24-3329), C053 (25-3580 and 26-2697), C054 (26-1736), C055 (26-1737), C057 (26-2838) and C067 (26-2698), together with two Ninth Circuit appeals in C046 (25-4324 and 25-7397). Each link was confirmed from the appellate docket's own record of the district court case it was taken from, not from caption similarity.

New court findings recorded on the Lackawanna property-tax case: The report and recommendation and adopting order in C067 were read in full and establish that the dismissal rested on the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1341, and the comity doctrine -- grounds not previously recorded. Further orders were read and recorded for C040, C053, C055, C065 and C071.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appears in the Union Lodge case: In C085 the Commonwealth appeared through counsel and returned a waiver of service on Aug. 19, 2026, with its answer due Oct. 9, 2026. This corroborates the Commonwealth as a party; the other named defendants in that case remain uncorroborated.

Corrections to the Social Security Administration case record: In C098 the June 2026 motion was a combined Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 56 motion rather than a motion for summary judgment, and its denial was procedural. A previously recorded statement that a status conference was held on June 29, 2026 was not supported by the docket and has been withdrawn. A forty-three day stay pending restoration of Department of Justice funding explains an earlier gap in the docket.

Data-quality corrections: C073 was previously described as unreachable at every source; its docket now resolves, so it is recorded as located but without mirrored entries, which is a different claim. The grounds recorded for C039, C041 and C054 were corrected or completed against the order text.

Related cases

• 3:23-cv-02106 — Tufano v. Levy et al
• 3:24-cv-00846 — Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators
• 3:24-cv-01117 — Tufano v. Miller et al
• 3:24-cv-01115 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet, LLC
• 3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al
• 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-01574 — Tufano v. Google LLC et al
• 4:25-cv-01960 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD 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-01016 — Tufano v. Eriksson et al
• 3:26-cv-01018 — Tufano v. United States Department of Agriculture
• 3:26-cv-02257 — Tufano v. Free and Accepted Masons of Union Lodge No. 291 et al
• 66298/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Social Security Administration et al
• 7:20-cv-09346 — Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano
• 25SMCV05503 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.

Note

Court findings, party filings and this project's own research classifications are recorded as separate evidence layers. Where a docket entry title was the only thing available, it is recorded as a docket snapshot and not as a court finding. The litigation-volume observation added in this pass is a judicial statement about the number of actions filed in one district; it is not a determination that Frank Tufano is a vexatious litigant, and no court has entered any filing restriction against him.