# Firsov

> District Court, N.D. California · June 23, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11380396

## Case

- **Full name:** Sergey Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** June 23, 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/11380396

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 SERGEY FIRSOV, Case No. 25-cv-03691-EMC

8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING SANA/SAS’S
9 v. MOTION FOR PRE-FILING ORDER

10 SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM
DENMARK-NORWAY-SWEDEN, Docket No. 105
11
Defendant.
12
13
14 Plaintiff Sergey Firsov filed suit against Defendant Scandinavian Airlines of North
15 America, Inc. (“SANA”) – and then substituted Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-
16 Sweden (“SAS”) for SANA – based on two incidents that took place during two different flights.
17 As alleged, in the first incident, he was given a vegetarian meal instead of a chicken meal and only
18 one free drink; in the second incident, the flight was too dry because of a broken air conditioner
19 which purportedly caused damage to both Mr. Firsov and his dogs who were also on board.
20 In late 2025, the Court issued a monetary sanction against Mr. Firsov ($722) because he
21 had, in bad faith, moved to strike a SANA filing. See Docket Nos. 58, 81, 88 (orders). Then, in
22 early 2026, the Court dismissed Mr. Firsov’s case, holding, inter alia, that (1) the Court lacked
23 personal jurisdiction over SAS with respect to the air conditioner incident and that (2) Mr. Firsov
24 failed to plead a physical injury as required by the Montreal Convention with respect to the
25 food/drink incident. See Docket No. 96 (order). A final judgment was thus entered against Mr.
26 Firsov. See Docket No. 98 (judgment).
27 Now pending before the Court is a motion for sanctions filed by SANA/SAS. SANA/SAS
1 sanctions award issued by the Court. SANA/SAS also ask that the Court declare Mr. Firsov a
2 vexatious litigant and impose a prefiling order. Finally, SANA/SAS request that the Court grant
3 its attorneys’ fees, either “in connection with this lawsuit and/or in connection with [the pending]
4 motion.” Mot. at 15. As indicated in its minute order at Docket No. 112, the Court has deferred
5 ruling on the motion for contempt and its request for fees. This order addresses SANA/SAS’s
6 request that the Court declare Mr. Firsov a vexatious litigant and issue a prefiling order.
7 Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as all other
8 evidence of record and evidence of which the Court may take judicial notice, the Court hereby
9 GRANTS SANA/SAS’s motion for relief.
10 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
11 Mr. Firsov is a pro se litigant. He is a serial litigator, both in state and federal court. In
12 November 2020, he was declared a vexatious litigant by a Santa Clara Superior Court. See
13 https://courts.ca.gov/news-reference/reports-publications/vexatious-litigant-list (last visited
14 6/23/2026); https://courts.ca.gov/system/files/file/vexlit.pdf (last visited 6/23/2026). Mr. Firsov
15 has not been declared (as of yet) a vexatious litigant in federal court.
16 A. Cases Filed in This District
17 Below is a chart that lists the cases Mr. Firsov has filed in this District, including the case
18 at bar. As reflected in the chart, Mr. Firsov has filed 30 cases in this District in the period from
19 March 26, 2025, through June 1, 2026 (i.e., in a little over one year).1
20 • Out of the 30 cases, all but 3 have included at least one airline(s) as a defendant.
21 • In all of the 30 cases, Mr. Firsov moved for IFP status. The requests have been
22 denied.
23 • About two-thirds of the 30 cases are now closed. Dismissals have taken place for a
24 variety of reasons, including the following: failure to pay the filing fee; no viable
25 federal claim under the Montreal Convention; voluntary dismissal; lack of personal
26

27
1 Mr. Firsov also filed a suit on behalf of his minor child during this period. See Firsov v. Church
1 jurisdiction; and insufficient service of process.
2
Case No. Case Name Description of Case and Status IFP Ruling
3 1. No. C- Firsov v. Alaska Filed on 3/26/2025; closed on Denied on
25-2841 Airlines 6/23/2025. 4/4/2025.
4 NW
Main factual allegations: airline
5 failed to refund pet or baggage
fee. Mr. Firsov claimed flight
6 was part of larger international
trip and he should not have had
7 to pay pet/baggage fee for each
leg of trip. Mr. Firsov also
8 claimed emotional distress.

9 Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
include: motion to reconsider;
10 multiple motions to disqualify
(magistrate judge and district
11 judge).

12 Dismissal based on failure to
pay filing fee. See Docket No.
13 37 (order).
2. No. C- Firsov v. Frontier Filed on 3/28/2025; closed on Denied on
14 25-2898 Airlines, Inc. 11/21/2025. 4/3/2025.
SVK
15 Main factual allegations: airline
failed to refund pet or baggage
16 fee. Mr. Firsov claimed flight
was part of larger international
17 trip and he should not have had
to pay pet/baggage fee for each
18 leg of trip. Mr. Firsov also
claimed emotional distress.
19
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
20 include: multiple motions to
reconsider; multiple motions to
21 disqualify.

22 Dismissal of federal claim based
on Montreal Convention. No
23 claim under Montreal
Convention because “it cannot
24 be reasonably inferred that [the]
Frontier flight was part of his
25 international travel” (i.e., flight
with Frontier was a “purely
26 domestic flight”). Docket No.
58 (Order at 6). Supplemental
27 jurisdiction over state law claims
3. No. C- Firsov v. Filed on 4/9/2025; closed on Denied on
1 25-3198 Skyscanner, Inc. 5/14/2026. 6/3/2025 and
JST 6/27/2026.
2 Main factual allegations: airline
part of false advertising scheme
3 regarding cost of airline tickets.
Airline also canceled bookings
4 and issued refunds without Mr.
Firsov’s consent.
5
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
6 include: motion to reconsider;
motion to disqualify; motion to
7 recover cost of service.

8 Voluntary dismissal of airline
defendant after it filed motion to
9 dismiss (based on lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, insufficient
10 service of process, lack of
personal jurisdiction, and failure
11 to state a claim for relief). See
Docket No. 38 (notice of
12 voluntary dismissal).
4. No. C- Firsov v. JetBlue Filed on 4/16/2025; closed on Denied on
13 25-3387 Airways Corp. 6/18/2025. 4/18/2025.
RFL
14 Main factual allegations: airline
failed to refund pet or baggage
15 fee. Mr. Firsov claimed flight
was part of larger international
16 trip and he should not have had
to pay pet/baggage fee for each
17 leg of trip. Mr. Firsov also
claimed emotional distress.
18
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
19 include: motion to reconsider;
motion to disqualify.
20
Dismissal based on failure to
21 pay filing fee. See Docket No.
26 (order).
22 5. No. C- Firsov v. Austrian Filed on 4/21/2025; effectively Denied on
25-3504 Airlines AG closed on 3/31/2026. 4/28/2025.
23 PCP
Main factual allegations: Mr.
24 Firsov prevented from entering
bathroom with his bag
25 containing his dogs. Dogs were
not able to drink water under the
26 seat because space was too
small. Dogs’ health suffered.
27 Mr. Firsov also claimed
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
1 include: motion to disqualify;
multiple motions to reconsider;
2 motion to transfer.

3 Dismissal based on failure to
state a claim for relief and
4 preemption by Montreal
Convention. See Docket No. 53
5 (Order at 4, 7).
6. No. C- Firsov v. Turkish Filed on 4/28/2025. Denied on
6 25-3689 Airlines, Inc. 6/27/2025.
AGT Main factual allegations: airline
7 forced Mr. Firsov to use face
recognition system in order to
8 board (instead of doing a
“manual check”). Mr. Firsov
9 claimed emotional distress.

10 Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
include: motions to reconsider;
11 motion for sanctions; motion to
deny foreign sovereign
12 immunity; motions to amend;
motions to recover cost of
13 service; motion for entry of
default judgment; motions to
14 strike.
7. No. C- Firsov v. Filed on 4/28/2025; closed on Denied on
15 26-3691 Scandinavian 1/26/2026. 5/2/2025.
EMC Airlines of N. Am.,
16 [case at Inc. Main factual allegations: on one
bar] flight, airline gave Mr. Firsov a
17 vegetarian meal and only one
free drink; on another flight, air
18 conditioner was broken, and
both Mr. Firsov and his dogs
19 suffered. Mr. Firsov also
claimed emotional distress.
20
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
21 include: multiple motions to
reconsider; multiple motions to
22 disqualify (magistrate judge and
district judge); multiple motions
23 to strike; multiple motion for
sanctions.
24
Dismissal of food/drink claim
25 because no physical injury, as
required by Montreal
26 Convention, was suffered.
Dismissal of air conditioner
27 claim based on lack of personal
8. No. C- Firsov v. United Filed on 5/1/2025; closed on Denied on
1 25-3784 Airlines, Inc. 4/1/2026. 5/28/2025.
BLF
2 Main factual allegations: airline
failed to honor advertised price
3 of flight. Mr. Firsov also
claimed emotional distress.
4
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
5 include: multiple motions to
reconsider; multiple motions to
6 disqualify; multiple motions to
strike; motion for sanctions.
7
Dismissal of claims against
8 United based on, e.g., failure to
plead antitrust claim; dismissal
9 of claims against Lufthansa
based on lack of personal
10 jurisdiction. Order to show
cause issued to as why case
11 should not be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
12 See Docket No. 104 (order).
Final order of dismissal based on
13 lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Docket No.
14 109 (order).
9. No. C- Firsov v. United Filed on 5/5/2025; closed on Denied on
15 25-3903 Airlines, Inc. 9/24/2025. 6/3/2025.
CRB
16 Main factual allegations: airlines
failed to refund pet or baggage
17 fees. Mr. Firsov claimed flights
part of larger international trip
18 and he should not have had to
pay pet/baggage fee for each leg
19 of trip. Mr. Firsov also claimed
emotional distress.
20
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
21 include: motion to reconsider.

22 Voluntary dismissal. See
Docket No. 15 (notice). Prior to
23 voluntary dismissal, report and
recommendation of dismissal for
24 failure to pay filing fee. See
Docket No. 13 (R&R).
25 10. No. C- Firsov v. Air Filed on 5/8/2025; closed on Denied on
25-4058 Canada, Inc. 9/2/2025. 8/18/2025.
26 LJC
Main factual allegations: Mr.
27 Firsov was forced to incur
airline refused to reimburse him
1 for expenses incurred.

2 Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
include: N/A.
3
Voluntary dismissal. See
4 Docket No. 12 (notice). Prior to
voluntary dismissal, order to
5 show cause why claims should
not be dismissed for failure to
6 pay filing fee. See Docket No.
11 (OSC).
7 11. No. C- Firsov v. Filed on 6/6/2025; closed on Denied on
25-4726 Moneygram 8/1/2025. 6/12/2025.
8 EKL Payment Sys., Inc.
Not an airline case.
9
Dismissal based on failure to
10 pay filing fee. See Docket No.
28 (order).
11 12. No. C- Firsov v. Western Filed on 6/4/2025; closed on Denied on
25-4727 Union Fin. Servs., 7/23/2025. 6/11/2025.
12 NC Inc.
Not an airline case.
13
Dismissal based on failure to
14 pay filing fee and lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. See Docket
15 No. 14 (order).
13. No. C- Firsov v. Dandelion Filed on 6/5/2025; closed on Denied on
16 25-4765 Payments, Inc. 10/20/2025. 8/15/2025.
EKL
17 Not an airline case.

18 Dismissal based on failure to
pay filing fee. See Docket No.
19 15 (order).
14. No. C- Firsov v. JetBlue Filed on 6/23/2025; closed on Denied on
20 25-5240 Airways Corp. 1/6/2026. 6/26/2025.
TLT
21 Main factual allegations: airline
failed to refund pet or baggage
22 fee. Mr. Firsov claimed flight
part of larger international trip
23 and he should not have had to
pay pet/baggage fee for each leg
24 of trip. Mr. Firsov also claimed
emotional distress.
25
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
26 include: multiple motions to
reconsider.
27
Flights “did not constitute a
1 single operation of international
travel under the Montreal
2 Convention.” Docket No. 48
(Order at 4).
3 15. No. C- Firsov v. Qatar Filed on 6/25/2025; closed on Denied on
25-5325 Airways Grp. 4/3/2026. 7/22/2025.
4 BLF
Main factual allegations: airline
5 changed Mr. Firsov’s flight
which resulted in delayed arrival
6 time. Mr. Firsov also claimed
emotional distress.
7
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
8 include: multiple motions to
reconsider.
9
Dismissal based on failure to
10 state a claim. State law claims
preempted by Montreal
11 Convention; no viable Montreal
Convention claim pled – no right
12 to same-day rebooking on
another carrier. See Docket No.
13 68 (Order at 3).
16. No. C- Firsov v. Aerovias Filed on 6/30/2025; closed on Denied on
14 25-5481 Del Continente 2/20/2026. 8/15/2025.
NW Americano S.A.
15 Avianca Main factual allegations: airline
downgraded Mr. Firsov from
16 business class to economy, then
wrongfully canceled ticket
17 instead of processing partial
refund.
18
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
19 include: motion to reconsider;
motion to strike.
20
Dismissal based on insufficient
21 service of process. See Docket
No. 60 (order).
22 17. No. C- Firsov v. Alaska Filed on 6/30/2025; closed on Denied on
25-5487 Airlines, Inc. 3/5/2026. 8/14/2025.
23 NW
Main factual allegations: airline
24 failed to refund pet or baggage
fee. Mr. Firsov claimed flight
25 part of larger international trip
and he should not have had to
26 pay pet/baggage fee for each leg
of trip. In addition, airline failed
27 to provide paid-for food and
1 Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
include: motion to reconsider;
2 motion to strike; multiple
motions for sanctions.
3
Dismissal based on lack of
4 subject matter jurisdiction. See
Docket No. 61 (order).
5 Insufficient allegations that
“Alaska regarded itself as part of
6 a single operation with any other
air carrier” for purposes of
7 Montreal Convention. Docket
No. 61 (Order at 4). Declining
8 supplemental jurisdiction over
state law claims. See Docket
9 No. 61 (Order at 5).
18. No. C- Firsov v. American Filed on 9/10/2025; closed on Denied on
10 25-7709 Airlines, Inc. 3/4/2026. 10/2/2025.
RS
11 Main factual allegations: airline
failed to refund pet or baggage
12 fee. Mr. Firsov claimed flight
part of larger international trip
13 and he should not have had to
pay pet/baggage fee for each leg
14 of trip. Mr. Firsov also claimed
emotional distress.
15
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
16 include: multiple motions to
reconsider; motion to strike.
17
Dismissal based on failure to
18 amend. See Docket No. 33
(order). Prior to that order, order
19 issued holding failure to state a
claim for relief for breach of
20 contract or applicability of
Montreal Convention. See
21 Docket No. 31 (Order at 3).
19. No. C- Firsov v. Swiss Int’l Filed on 10/16/2025. Denied on
22 25-8824 Air Lines Ltd. 6/3/2026.
PHK Main factual allegations: airline
23 subjected Mr. Firsov to face
recognition system and “manual
24 check.” Mr. Firsov also claimed
emotional distress.
25
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
26 include: motion to reconsider.
20. No. C- Firsov v. Deutsche Filed on 10/27/2025; closed on Denied on
27 25-9203 Lufthansa 5/12/2026. 10/30/2025.
did not allow Mr. Firsov to pet
1 his cat who was in baggage
under the seat. Flight attendant
2 grabbed Mr. Firsov’s shoulder
during disagreement over the
3 matter. Mr. Firsov claimed
physical injury and emotional
4 distress.

5 Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
include: motion to recover cost
6 of formal service.

7 Dismissal based on adoption of
R&R. Failure to comply with
8 orders (related to service) and
failure to prosecute. See Docket
9 No. 20 (R&R).
21. No. C- Firsov. v. Marriott Filed on 11/17/2025. Denied on
10 25-9746 Int’l 11/26/2025.
HSG Main factual allegations: airline
11 should not have charged
baggage fees and failed to give
12 upgrades because of loyalty
program in which Mr. Firsov
13 was a participant.

14 Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
include: motion to recover cost
15 of service.
22. No. C- Firsov v. Turkish Filed on 1/12/2026. Denied on
16 26-0304 Airlines Inc. 1/15/2026.
KAW Main factual allegations: airline
17 denied boarding to Mr. Firsov
because of his Russian passport.
18 Mr. Firsov also claimed
emotional distress.
19
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
20 include: motion to recover cost
of formal service; motion to
21 amend.
23. No. C- Firsov v. Filed on 1/12/2026. Denied on
22 26-0305 Scandinavian 1/13/2026.
JD Airlines Sys. Main factual allegations: airline
23 Denmark-Norway- added Mr. Firsov to no-fly list
Sweden and discriminated against Mr.
24 Firsov based on his U.S.
citizenship.
25
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
26 include: motion to recover cost
of service.
27 24. No. C- Firsov v. Skywest Filed on 1/13/2026; closed on Denied on
Main factual allegations: airlines
1 failed to “combine” domestic
and international tickets that Mr.
2 Firsov purchased separately.

3 Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
include: motion to recover cost
4 of service; motion to amend;
motion to reconsider.
5
Dismissal based on lack of
6 subject matter jurisdiction. See
Docket No. 54 (order).
7 25. No. C- Firsov v. Deutsche Filed on 1/22/2026. Denied on
26-0679 Lufthansa 1/26/2026.
8 AMO Aktiengesellschaft Main factual allegations: airline
denied Mr. Firsov boarding
9 because he had two bags; airline
delayed flight. Mr. Firsov also
10 claimed emotional distress.

11 Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
include: motion to recover cost
12 of service.
26. No. C- Firsov v. Frontier Filed on 2/5/2026; closed on Denied on
13 26-1131 Airlines Inc. 6/18/2026. 5/18/2026.
YGR
14 Main factual allegations: airline
added Mr. Firsov to no-fly list;
15 airline discriminated against Mr.
Firsov based on national origin
16 (Russian). Mr. Firsov also
claimed emotional distress.
17
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
18 include: N/A.

19 Dismissal based on failure to
pay filing fee. See Docket No.
20 14 (order).
27. No. C- Firsov v. Wizfair, Filed on 4/24/2026. Denied on
21 26-3425 LLC 4/24/2026.
RS Main factual allegations: airline
22 [airline] improperly canceled Mr.
Firsov’s ticket.
23
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
24 include: motion to reconsider.

25 Report and recommendation
issued. Recommending
26 dismissal based on failure to pay
filing fee. See Docket No. 10
27 (R&R).
KAW Aktiengesellschaft Main factual allegations: flight
1 attendant told Mr. Firsov not to
pet his cat that he had in the
2 cabin as baggage and forced him
to put the cat under the seat.
3
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
4 include: motion to reconsider.
29. No. C- Firsov v. Starlux Filed on 5/28/2026. Denied on
5 26-5047- Airlines Co., LTD 6/3/2026.
KAW Main factual allegations: after
6 Mr. Firsov purchased ticket for
flight, airline gave him a refund
7 because it wanted to charge a
higher price.
8
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
9 include: motion to reconsider.
30. C-26- Firsov v. Polskie Filed on 6/1/2026. Denied on
10 5195 Linie Lotnicze LOT 6/1/2026.
KAW S.A. Main factual allegations: airline
11 advertised a flight but Mr. Firsov
[airline] was forced to buy three separate
12 tickets for the flight instead of
just one.
13
Motions filed by Mr. Firsov
14 include: motion to reconsider.
15 B. The Instant Case
16 The Court also reviews the litigation that has taken place in this case specifically because it
17 is representative of how Mr. Firsov has chosen to litigate in most of his cases. Below is a
18 timeline.
19 • 4/28/2025. Mr. Firsov filed the complaint. See Docket No. 1.
20 • 5/2/2025. Judge Westmore, the then-assigned judge, denied Mr. Firsov’s IFP
21 application. See Docket No. 6 (order).
22 • 5/12/2025. Mr. Firsov moved Judge Westmore to reconsider her ruling on his IFP
23 application. He also moved for her disqualification. See Docket Nos. 7-8
24 (motions).
25 • 6/24/2025. Judge Westmore denied both the motion to reconsider and the motion
26 to disqualify. See Docket No. 10 (order).
27 • 7/31/2025. Mr. Firsov moved to recover the cost of serving SANA. See Docket
1 • 8/18/2025. SANA filed a motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 16 (motion).
2 • 8/25/2025. The instant case was reassigned to this Court. See Docket No. 23
3 (order).
4 • 9/25/2025. The Court denied Mr. Firsov’s motion to recover the cost of service.
5 The Court also granted SANA’s motion to dismiss on the basis that Mr. Firsov had
6 named the wrong defendant, and gave Mr. Firsov leave to amend to name the
7 correct defendant and clarify the damages sought. The Court stated that the request
8 to declare Mr. Firsov a vexatious litigant was premature. See Docket No. 34
9 (order). The Court added: “To be clear, the Court is neither endorsing nor
10 condemning what appears to be Mr. Firsov’s practice of suing airlines, sometimes
11 for what are arguably minor events. It appears Mr. Firsov’s ‘business model’ for
12 these lawsuits is to seek IFP status (so that he does not have to pay the court filing
13 fees), ask for emotional distress damages, and (perhaps to account for the
14 possibility of no or little emotional distress damages) ask to be refunded the cost of
15 his airline tickets (not insignificant given that international travel is involved). But
16 Mr. Firsov is not the first person or entity to use litigation as a business model.
17 Sometimes those models are successful; sometimes they are not. And as noted
18 above, should Mr. Firsov take frivolous positions, he runs the risk of sanctions.”
19 Docket No. 34 (Order at 4).
20 • 9/30/2025. Mr. Firsov moved the Court to reconsider its order denying his motion
21 to recover the cost of service. See Docket No. 35 (motion).
22 • 10/1/2025. The Court denied Mr. Firsov’s motion to reconsider. See Docket No.
23 37 (order).
24 • 10/6/2025. Mr. Firsov moved the Court to reconsider its order granting SANA’s
25 motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 40 (motion). Mr. Firsov also filed a motion
26 seeking sanctions against defense counsel. See Docket No. 41 (motion).
27 • 10/7/2025. The Court denied Mr. Firsov’s motion to reconsider. In its order, the
1 page length. See Docket No. 42 (order).
2 • 10/14/2025. Mr. Firsov filed a motion to strike the motion to dismiss that SANA
3 had filed and the Court had granted. See Docket No. 44 (motion). Mr. Firsov also
4 filed another motion to recover the cost of service. See Docket No. 45 (motion).
5 • 11/6/2025. The Court issued an order that addressed the pending matters. First,
6 the Court denied Mr. Firsov’s motion for sanctions, noting, inter alia, that it had
7 already rejected his contention that SANA had filed excess pages. Second, the
8 Court denied Mr. Firsov’s motion to strike SANA’s motion to dismiss – again
9 noting (among other things) that there was no violation of the Civil Local Rules on
10 page length. The Court emphasized that Mr. Firsov was relying on an order from
11 Judge Freeman to support his position that SANA had filed excess pages, but Judge
12 Freeman had vacated that order. Third, the Court denied (for a third time) Mr.
13 Firsov’s attempt to recover the cost of service on SANA. Fourth, the Court granted
14 SANA/SAS’s request for sanctions on a limited basis. Specifically, it sanctioned
15 Mr. Firsov for filing his motion to strike (related to excess pages) because it was
16 patently meritless and filed in bad faith. It ordered the parties to provide
17 supplemental briefing to address the amount of monetary sanctions. See Docket
18 No. 58 (order).
19 • 11/10/2025. Mr. Firsov moved for reconsideration of the order above. See Docket
20 No. 61 (motion).
21 • 11/18/2025. Mr. Firsov moved to disqualify the undersigned. See Docket No. 64
22 (motion).
23 • 11/20/2025. SANA/SAS moved for sanctions against Mr. Firsov. The sanctions
24 sought included attorneys’ fees, terminating sanctions, and a prefiling order. See
25 Docket No. 69 (motion).
26 • 11/24/2025. Mr. Firsov moved for a default judgment as to SAS. See Docket No.
27 74 (motion).
1 Docket No. 76 (motion). He also moved for sanctions against defense counsel. See
2 Docket No. 77 (motion).
3 • 12/7/2025. The Court denied Mr. Firsov’s motion to disqualify. See Docket No.
4 80 (order). The Court also denied Mr. Firsov’s motion to reconsider the rulings
5 made in its order of November 6, 2025. See Docket No. 81 (order).
6 • 12/11/2025. The Court denied Mr. Firsov’s motion for a default judgment. It
7 rejected Mr. Firsov’s contention that he had properly served SAS. See Docket No.
8 85 (order).
9 • 12/15/2025. The Court denied SANA/SAS’s request for sanctions except to the
10 extent the Court had already sanctioned Mr. Firsov for filing the motion to strike
11 based on excess pages. The Court issued monetary sanctions in favor of
12 SANA/SAS in the amount of $722; directed that payment should be made no later
13 than December 31, 2025; and ordered the parties to meet and confer to determine
14 how best to convey the funds to SANA/SAS. The Court expressly warned Mr.
15 Firsov that failure to pay meant that he could be held in civil contempt. The Court
16 denied Mr. Firsov’s motion for sanctions. See Docket No. 88 (order).
17 • 12/18/2025. Mr. Firsov moved the Court to reconsider its order sanctioning him.
18 See Docket No. 89 (motion).
19 • 12/22/2025. The Court denied Mr. Firsov’s motion to reconsider. See Docket No.
20 90 (order).
21 • 12/30/2025. SAS filed a motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 92 (motion).
22 • 1/21/2026. The Court granted SAS’s motion to dismiss. It held, inter alia, that (1)
23 the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over SAS with respect to the air conditioner
24 incident; (2) Mr. Firsov failed to plead physical injury for purposes of the Montreal
25 Convention with respect to the food/drink incident; and (3) to the extent Mr. Firsov
26 brought a claim for failure to register as a business in California, there was no
27 private right of action. See Docket No. 96 (order). A final judgment was entered
1 • 1/26/2026. Mr. Firsov moved for reconsideration of the above order. See Docket
2 No. 100 (motion). He also filed a motion to change venue. See Docket No. 101
3 (motion).
4 • 1/28/2026. The Court denied both of Mr. Firsov’s motions. See Docket No. 103
5 (order).
6 • 3/13/206. SANA/SAS filed a motion for civil contempt because Mr. Firsov had
7 failed to pay the monetary sanctions award of $722. It also moved to declare Mr.
8 Firsov a vexatious litigant and for issuance of a prefiling order.
9 • 6/18/2026. The Court deferred ruling on the contempt motion. The Court granted
10 the request that Mr. Firsov be declared a vexatious litigant. This order
11 memorializes the basis for the Court’s ruling and provides further analysis as
12 necessary.
13 II. DISCUSSION
14 SANA/SAS ask that the Court declare Mr. Firsov a vexatious litigant and impose a pre-
15 filing review requirement – i.e., bar Mr. Firsov from filing, in the future, any lawsuit in the District
16 without prior permission from a judge in the District. In his opposition brief, Mr. Firsov failed to
17 address this issue.
18 At the hearing, Mr. Firsov tried to submit a motion to strike, see also Docket No. 110
19 (motion, filed on the docket approximately two hours before the hearing), but the Court denied the
20 motion. The motion was not timely filed. Mr. Firsov has been on notice of SANA/SAS’s
21 vexatious litigant motion since March 2026. Moreover, on the merits, Mr. Firsov’s motion to
22 strike is without merit. It raises an argument that the Court has already rejected – i.e., that a
23 specially appearing defendant cannot ask for or be awarded sanctions.
24 The Ninth Circuit has recognized that courts have the inherent power “‘to regulate the
25 activities of abusive litigants.’” De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990).
26 “Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to
27 preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of
1 other litigants.” Id. at 1149. Based on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a),2 a court may
2 impose a prefiling order on a litigant – i.e., an order requiring that a plaintiff’s complaint be
3 subject to judicial review before it can be accepted for filing. See id. at 1147. An order requiring
4 prefiling review, however, should “rarely be filed,” and, if issued, should be “carefully tailored.”
5 Id.
6 In De Long, the Ninth Circuit laid out four factors for a court to consider before entering a
7 prefiling order.
8 • First, the court must give the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard before
9 imposing the prefiling order. See id.
10 • Second, the court must create an adequate record for review – i.e., the court must
11 list all cases and motions that could lead to a conclusion that the litigant is abusing
12 the judicial system and that a vexatious litigant order is needed. See id.
13 • Third, the court must make a substantive finding as to the frivolous or harassing
14 nature of the litigant’s actions. See id. at 1148.
15 • Fourth, the prefiling order must not be overly broad and must be “narrowly tailored
16 to closely fit the specific vice encountered.” Id.
17 The first and second factors are “procedural considerations – that is, the factors define ‘[a]
18 specific method or course of action’ that district courts should use to assess whether to declare a
19 party a vexatious litigant and enter a pre-filing order.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500
20 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). The third and fourth factors are “substantive considerations –
21 that is, the factors help the district court define who is, in fact, a ‘vexatious litigant’ and construct
22 a remedy that will stop the litigant's abusive behavior while not unduly infringing the litigant's
23 right to access the courts.” Id. at 1058.
24 For the third and fourth (i.e., substantive) factors, the Ninth Circuit has stated that the
25 following may be taken into account:

26

27
2 Section 1651(a) provides: “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress
(1) the litigant's history of litigation and in particular whether it
1 entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the
litigant's motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant have
2 an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?; (3) whether the
litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused
3 needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary
burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other
4 sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties.
5 Id. (taking note that these considerations are used by the Second Circuit).
6 Molski is an instructive case with respect to how a court should evaluate the four De Long
7 factors – in particular, the third which requires that a court consider whether a litigant has engaged
8 in abusive (i.e., frivolous or harassing) conduct. In Molski, the plaintiff was a physically disabled
9 person who used a wheelchair. He had filed about 400 disability accommodation suits in federal
10 district courts in California. See id. at 1050. In the specific case under consideration, the plaintiff
11 alleged that, during a trip, he stopped at a restaurant to eat. While there, he went to the bathroom.
12 “Molski was able to pass through the narrow restroom door, but there was not enough clear space
13 to permit him to access the toilet from his wheelchair. Molski then exited the restroom, and in the
14 course of doing so, got his hand caught in the restroom door, ‘causing trauma’ to his hand.” Id. at
15 1050-51.
16 For the third De Long factor, the Ninth Circuit noted that, to decide whether a plaintiff’s
17 actions are frivolous or harassing, a district court must evaluate both the number and content of the
18 plaintiff’s filings. The number of suits that the plaintiff had filed was clearly high. As for the
19 content of the plaintiff’s suits, the Ninth Circuit held the district court did not clearly err in finding
20 it problematic – i.e., both frivolous and harassing.
21 With respect to frivolity, the Ninth Circuit recognized that,

22 [b]ecause many of the violations Molski challenged were similar, it
would have been reasonable for [his] complaints to contain similar
23 allegations of barriers to entry, inadequate signage, and so on.
However, it is very unlikely that Molski suffered the same injuries,
24 often multiple times in one day, performing the same activities –
transferring himself from his wheelchair to the toilet or negotiating
25 accessibility obstacles. Common sense dictates that Molski would
have figured out some way to avoid repetitive injury-causing
26 activity; even a young child who touches a hot stove quickly learns
to avoid pain by not repeating the conduct. The district court's
27 conclusion that Molski "plainly lied" in making his injury
In light of the district court's finding that Molski did not suffer the
1 injuries he claimed, it was not clearly erroneous for the district court
to conclude that the large number of complaints filed by Molski
2 containing false or exaggerated allegations of injury were vexatious.
3 Id. at 1059; see also id. at 1060-61 (emphasizing that a frivolous case is not simply one where the
4 “legal claim is entirely without merit[;] [i]t is also frivolous for a claimant who has some measure
5 of a legitimate claim to make false factual assertions” – either “grossly exaggerated or totally
6 false”).
7 As for harassment,

8 [t]he district court's determination that Molski harassed defendants
into cash settlements was justified by its findings regarding Molski's
9 litigation strategy. California law provides that a plaintiff who
suffers discrimination based on his or her disability may recover up
10 to three times the amount of actual damages for each offense, and
that, at a minimum, the plaintiff must recover damages of not less
11 than $ 4000. Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). Thus, Molski usually sought
damages of not less than $ 4000 for each day that a facility did not
12 comply with the ADA. Because Molski would often wait to file suit
until a full year elapsed since his visit to the defendants'
13 establishments, defendants often faced claims for statutory damages
of over one million dollars. While Molski's claim for daily damages
14 might have been legally justified, it was not clearly erroneous for the
district court to find that Molski's litigation strategy evidenced an
15 intent to harass businesses into cash settlements.

16 The district court also did not err when it inferred an intent to harass
defendants into settlement from the fact that Molski had tried on the
17 merits only one of his roughly 400 ADA cases and the fact that
Molski and the Frankovich Group targeted ethnic restaurants viewed
18 as easy prey for coercive claims.
19 Id. at 1059-60.
20 In the instant case, the Court finds that there is a sufficient basis and need to declare Mr.
21 Firsov a vexatious litigant, particularly because his conduct has been harassing. That is, his means
22 of litigating has been abusive. He has typically challenged any adverse order (even just an order
23 denying him IFP status) with a motion to reconsider. In the wake of an adverse order, he has also
24 routinely filed motions to disqualify. In addition, he has in many instances filed motions to strike
25 filings made by the airlines and/or motions to sanction the airlines – thus further multiplying
26 proceedings. Although his requests for IFP have repeatedly been denied, such that Mr. Firsov has
27 had to pay thousands in filing fees alone, he still continues to seek IFP status in his most recently-
1 any case but rather is taking a scorched earth approach. Mr. Firsov has caused needless expense to
2 the airlines he has sued and imposed an unnecessary burden on the undersigned and other judges
3 in this District. Lesser sanctions would not be effective as demonstrated by the fact that this Court
4 previously imposed monetary sanctions on Mr. Firsov because of the way he conducted the
5 litigation in this case, but he still did not pay which resulted in SANA/SAS moving for contempt.3
6 Moreover, in spite of this Court’s orders warning Mr. Firsov that he could be sanctioned for
7 misconduct and issuing sanctions, Mr. Firsov has not changed his litigation tactics.
8 As for frivolity, the Court begins by noting that, to date, Mr. Firsov has not prevailed in
9 any of the suits he has filed. In fact, approximately two-thirds of the cases have already been
10 closed and did not make it past the pleading stage.
11 Furthermore, Mr. Firsov may have been treated poorly by the airlines, but overall the
12 alleged misconduct is relatively minor such that Mr. Firsov’s claims of emotional distress ring
13 hollow. (Notably, Mr. Firsov has sought not only emotional distress damages for himself but also
14 his pets.) And the Montreal Convention does not even allow for pure emotional distress, requiring
15 that there be physical injury in the first instance. See Docket No. 88 (Order at 8). Furthermore,
16 Mr. Firsov’s attempt to get the entire cost of his international tickets reimbursed is highly
17 questionable given that the airlines (for the most part) did provide him with travel.
18 Mr. Firsov has also taken frivolous positions in many cases. For example:
19 • Mr. Firsov has repeatedly applied for IFP status in spite of having paid thousands
20 for international flights and thousands in filing fees after his IFP applications were
21 denied. In addition, he has repeatedly applied for IFP status even though judges in
22 this District have repeatedly denied the motions. When the judges deny his
23 motions, he promptly moves to reconsider.
24 • Mr. Firsov asserted in one case (No. C-25-3504) that the airline engaged in
25 wrongdoing by preventing him from taking his dog to the plane bathroom.
26

27
3 The Court has temporarily deferred ruling on SANA/SAS’s motion for contempt because Mr.
1 • In the instant case (No. C-25-3631), Mr. Firsov complained about being served a
2 vegetarian meal because he is a man and needs to eat meat. (And in another case,
3 he alleged that that he voluntarily ordered a vegetarian meal. See No. C-25-5481
4 (Compl. ¶ ) (alleging that “Plaintiffs called to airline to order vegetarian meal”).)
5 • In one case (No. C-25-3387), Mr. Firsov took a flight with Lufthansa from San
6 Francisco to Poland to Miami, and then a flight with JetBlue from Fort Lauderdale
7 to San Francisco. In spite of the different Florida airports used, Mr. Firsov claimed
8 that JetBlue should not have charged him a baggage fee because the Lufthansa and
9 JetBlue flights were part of a single international trip.4
10 • In one case (No. C-25-4058), where Mr. Firsov’s baggage was delayed, Mr. Firsov
11 suggested that it was reasonable for him to spend $1,100 on winter and summer
12 clothing and shoes as emergency expenses.
13 • In one case (No. C-25-5325), Mr. Firsov claimed (in the amended complaint) that,
14 because of a delayed flight, he had to spend $10,000 to take a private jet to make a
15 meeting with the Deputy of the Ministry of Health of Kazakhstan.
16 Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Firsov’s actions in the suits he has filed in this
17 District are harassing and/or he has repeatedly taken frivolous positions. Because Mr. Firsov is an
18 abusive litigant, there is a sufficient basis and need to declare him a vexatious litigant, and the
19 Court shall impose a prefiling order.
20 The Court, however, rejects the breadth of the prefiling order sought by SANA/SAS. The
21 Ninth Circuit has expressly cautioned that a prefiling order must be narrowly tailored to the
22 specific vice encountered. Given Mr. Firsov’s conduct to date, the Court concludes that prefiling
23 review is needed only with respect to lawsuits that Mr. Firsov files against airlines specifically.
24 This does not mean the Court is precluding a broader prefiling order from being imposed on Mr.
25 Firsov in the future. Mr. Firsov is forewarned that should he continue to litigate as he has done, he
26

27
4 Possibly, Mr. Firsov has repeatedly tried to characterize domestic flights as international so that
] risks being sanctioned with a broader prefiling order. But, at this juncture, the Court shall require
2 || prefiling review only where a named defendant is an airline.
3 Til. CONCLUSION
4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants SANA/SAS’s motion to declare Mr. Firsov a
5 || vexatious litigant.
6 The Clerk of this Court shall not file or accept any further complaints or other case
7 || initiating documents filed by or on behalf of Mr. Firsov alleging any claims against an airline
8 || unless and until that complaint or other filing has first been reviewed by the General Duty Judge
9 || of this Court and approved for filing, or if Mr. Firsov is represented by a licensed attorney
10 || admitted to practice in this Court.
11 If Mr. Firsov wishes to file a pro se complaint or other case-initiating document against an
12 || airline, he shall first provide the following documents to the Clerk of this Court:
13 e The complaint or other case-initiating document Mr. Firsov wishes to be filed; and
14 e A letter explaining why the filing is not frivolous legally and factually, along with a
2 15 copy of this Order.
a 16 The Clerk of the Court shall then forward the document presented for filing, Mr. Firsov’s
2 17 || letter, and a copy of this Order to the General Duty Judge. If the General Duty Judge determines
Z 18 || the complaint or other case-initiating document should not be accepted for filing because it is
19 || frivolous, the Clerk shall return the complaint to Mr. Firsov without filing it.
20 Any action filed in violation of this order will be subject to sua sponte dismissal.
21 Any action filed in another forum and removed or transferred to this Court will be subject
22 || to similar review by the assigned judge of this Court.
23 This order disposes of Docket No. 105.
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25 Dated: June 23, 2026
26
27
EDWA . CHEN
28 United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11380396. Public record. Not legal advice.