Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 30, 2025

Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:20-cv-09346
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureIntellectual PropertyTort
In one sentence

In Saladino, MD v. Tufano, Judge Roman entered a Judgment of Default on liability, ordered takedowns and domain transfer, and set a damages hearing.

Who this affects

Paul Saladino, Frank Tufano, and Frankie’s Free-Range Meat, LLC. The order also affects the specified online videos, public statements, and the domain name <PAULSALADINO.COM>.

What happened

In Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, Paul Saladino sued Frank Tufano and Frankie’s Free-Range Meat, LLC. The defendants were served but did not answer the amended complaint within the required time.

The amended complaint asserted claims under federal trademark law, two New York statutes, and common-law defamation. Saladino sought damages, removal of allegedly defamatory videos and a website, transfer of the website’s domain name, and an order barring further allegedly defamatory statements.

Judge Nelson S. Roman entered a Judgment of Default against both defendants on liability for every claim. He ordered the domain transferred to Saladino, barred specified public statements, and required removal of specified YouTube videos and other related defamatory videos. The court directed the parties to schedule a hearing before Judge Judith C. McCarthy concerning damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano · No. 7:20-cv-09346
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Jan. 30, 2025

Background

Paul Saladino brought the action on November 7, 2020. The opinion states that Frank Tufano was personally served with the summons and complaint on November 20, 2020. Frankie’s Free-Range Meat, LLC was served with the summons and First Amended Complaint through the New York Secretary of State on March 9, 2021.

The opinion states that neither defendant answered the First Amended Complaint and that the time to answer had expired. The amended complaint asserted five causes of action involving the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and § 1125(d), New York General Business Law § 148, New York General Business Law § 349, and common-law defamation.

Relief Requested

Saladino sought compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; attorney’s fees; and costs. The order lists the requested statutory damages as "$100.000.00." Saladino also sought orders requiring the defendants to stop publishing allegedly defamatory statements, remove allegedly defamatory videos from Frank Tufano’s YouTube channel, remove the website <PaulSaladino.com>, and transfer that domain name to Saladino.

Ruling

The court stated that a defendant who defaults admits the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations. It then ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Saladino was entitled to and was granted a Judgment of Default against each defendant on liability for each claim.

The court ordered the defendants to permanently transfer the domain name <PAULSALADINO.COM> to Saladino either immediately or within a reasonable time. It enjoined the defendants from making public statements that Saladino copied, plagiarized, stole, or improperly used the defendants’ or another person’s work; engaged in dishonest business, trade, or professional practices; abused prescription or illegal drugs; improperly or illegally manipulated social-media posts; or engaged in inappropriate sexual activity.

The court also directed the defendants to remove and delete the specified allegedly defamatory videos related to Saladino from the YouTube channel, as well as any other video containing defamatory statements related to him. The parties were directed to contact Judge Judith C. McCarthy’s chambers to schedule a hearing and obtain a Report and Recommendation concerning compensatory and statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. This order resolved liability but directed further proceedings concerning those monetary amounts.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.