# Firsov

> District Court, N.D. California · March 18, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369464

## Case

- **Full name:** Sergey Firsov v. Turkish Airlines, Inc., et al.
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** March 18, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369464

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGEY FIRSOV, Case No. 25-cv-03689-AGT

Plaintiff,
ORDER:
v.
(I) GRANTING RULE 12(B)(5)
TURKISH AIRLINES, INC, et al., MOTION TO DISMISS,
(II) DENYING MOTIONS FOR
Defendants. DEFAULT JUDGMENT,
(III) DENYING MOTION FOR
SERVICE COSTS,
(IV) DENYING MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 19, 51, 55, 67

1. The Court grants Turkish Airlines’ Rule 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss for insufficient
service of process. Dkt. 67. The amended proof of service states that Plaintiff served “super-
visor Rashid in [a] Turkish [A]irlines uniform” at a “check-in counter at SFO airport, Inter-
national terminal.” Dkt. 44 at 5. Plaintiff hasn’t established that supervisor Rashid was one
of the officers or authorized agents who could accept service on behalf of the company. See
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 416.10; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B). As a result, the Court concludes
that Plaintiff didn’t adequately serve Turkish Airlines. Plaintiff must perfect service by April
10, 2026, or his claims against Turkish Airlines will be dismissed.
2. Because Plaintiff didn’t serve Turkish Airlines, the Court denies Plaintiff’s mo-
tions for default judgment. Dkts. 19, 55. Valid service of process is a prerequisite for default
judgment. S.E.C. v. Internet Sols. for Bus. Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff
also moved for default judgment against Scandinavian Airlines of North America, Inc.
(SANA), but later dropped all claims against SANA. Dkts. 19, 29, 63. Because Plaintiff isn’t
pursuing claims against SANA, the Court cannot enter default judgment against SANA.

3. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to recover service costs. Dkt. 18. Under Rule
4(d), if a plaintiff asks a defendant to waive service and the defendant refuses without good
cause, the Court “must impose on the defendant . . . the expenses later incurred in making
service.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2)(A). For this rule to apply to a corporate defendant, the plain-
tiff must make the waiver request “in writing” and address it to “an officer, a managing or
general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of
process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1)(A)(ii). Plaintiff hasn’t proven that he complied with this
requirement. He hasn’t shown that he served the waiver request on any of the listed persons.
As a result, there will be no reimbursement of service costs under Rule 4(d).
4. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (dkt. 51) is denied. Plaintiff hasn’t identified any

conduct by opposing counsel that would warrant imposing sanctions.
* * *
Having granted Turkish Airlines’ Rule 12(b)(5) motion, the Court won’t separately
evaluate the company’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 67.
Yet with a view toward future proceedings, the Court notes that there is a discrepancy be-
tween Plaintiff’s allegations and Turkish Airlines’ characterization thereof. In its motion,
Turkish Airlines states that, although Turkish Airlines initially didn’t allow Plaintiff to board
his flight, he was ultimately “transported.” Dkt. 67 at 8. Plaintiff instead alleges that Turkish
Airlines didn’t allow him to board, and that he “lost prepaid air-tickets and [a] prepaid hotel
reservation” as a result, dkt. 63 at 5—-suggesting that he was not “transported.” If Plaintiff
perfects service and Turkish Airlines again moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Turkish
Airlines must address this discrepancy or alter its characterization of the allegations. On a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must construe the allegations in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Fort v. Washington, 41 F.4th 1141, 1144 (th Cir. 2022).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2026
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369464. Public record. Not legal advice.