Firsov

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. REGARDING POTENTIAL

MISJOINDER

TURKISH AIRLINES, INC, et al.,

Defendants.

To date, the Court has primarily addressed Sergey Firsov’s claims against Defendant

Turk Hava Yollari, A.O. (“Turkish Airlines”). Most significantly, on June 8, 2026, the Court

granted Turkish Airlines’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend. Dkt. 106.

The second defendant in the case, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-

Sweden (“SAS”), has also moved to dismiss Firsov’s operative complaint, for insufficient

service of process. Dkt. 103. Before addressing that motion, however, the Court issues this

order to show cause on whether Firsov properly joined SAS as a defendant.

Turkish Airlines and SAS are not related entities. They are competing airlines. Firsov

doesn’t assert a right to relief against them “jointly, severally, or in the alternative.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). He brings claims against each airline based on events that took place on

different dates during the boarding process for different flights. On both occasions, what

allegedly transpired was similar: at an SFO gate for an international flight, SAS (on February

3, 2023) and Turkish Airlines (on May 5, 2023) refused to allow Firsov to board unless he

consented to a facial-recognition screening implemented by U.S. Customs and Boarder Pro-

tection. See Dkt. 63, First Amend. Compl. at 3–4. What happened was similar and may gen-

erate common questions of law, but more is required for joinder.

To join multiple defendants in the same lawsuit, the plaintiff must assert a right to

relief against the defendants that arises “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of

transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). It doesn’t appear that Firsov’s

complaint satisfies this standard. As noted above, SAS and Turkish Airlines are unrelated

entities, and Firsov is pursuing claims against them based on different encounters on differ-

ent dates. His claims clearly don’t arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Nor do

they appear to arise out of the same “series of transactions or occurrences.” Id. A “series”

suggests a relationship between the events that took place. Here, there is no such relation-

ship. Different airline employees for two unrelated airlines made their own independent

judgments, on different dates, that Firsov couldn’t board an international flight without first

submitting to a facial scan. Those events are not linked, even if they resemble each other.

The situation at issue bears some resemblance to cases in which a patent holder sues

distinct entities for patent infringement based on allegations that they each infringed the

patent, but with different infringement dates and different infringing products. In that sce-

nario, even though there may be common questions of law, joiner isn’t permitted. See, e.g.,

Pergo, Inc. v. Alloc, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 122, 128 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“The only connection

between the two sets of defendants is that they may have infringed the same patents owned

by Pergo. However, the fact that two parties may manufacture or sell similar products, and

that these sales or production may have infringed the identical patent owned by the plaintiffs

is not sufficient to join unrelated parties as defendants in the same lawsuit pursuant to Rule

20(a).””); see also 35 U.S.C. § 299(b) (codifying the same rule). Likewise here, even if SAS

and Turkish Airlines both required Firsov to submit to facial-recognition screening before

boarding an international flight, that similitude alone doesn’t appear sufficient “to join un-

related parties as defendants in the same lawsuit.” Pergo, 262 F. Supp. 2d at 128.

“On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a

party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. In light of the above, the Court orders Firsov to show cause, by

July 22, 2026, for why the Court shouldn’t drop SAS as a defendant in this lawsuit. SAS

may also provide its position on potential misjoinder and severance by the same date. The

July 10, 2026, hearing on SAS’s motion to dismiss (dkt. 103) is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2026

Alex G. Tse

United States Magistrate Judge