The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 SERGEY FIRSOV, Case No. 26-cv-00305-JD
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER RE DISMISSAL
v.
9
10 SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM
DENMARK-NORWAY-SWEDEN,
11
Defendant.
12
13 Pro se plaintiff Sergey Firsov alleged claims for breach of the Montreal Convention,
14 breach of contract, violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, intentional
15 infliction of emotional distress, and violation of business registration laws against defendant
16 Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden (SAS). See Dkt. No. 40 (Amended
17 Complaint). Firsov is a serial filer who has initiated a substantial number of similar lawsuits that
18 were found to be frivolous. As a result, he has been declared a vexatious litigant in California
19 state court and in this District. See Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines Sys. Denmark-Norway-
20 Sweden, No. 25-CV-03691-EMC, 2026 WL 1805737, at *1, 8 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2026). He is
21 subject to a pre-filing screening requirement that requires judicial approval before he may file a
22 new lawsuit against an airline in this District. Id.
23 The vexatious litigant and prefiling order here were entered after this case was filed.
24 Strictly speaking, this case is subject to many of the same concerns identified in the order, namely
25 that Firsov frivolously alleges that the Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction
26 because of his Montreal Convention claim.1 Even so, because the case predates the order, the
27
] Court will take up the jurisdictional shortcoming.
2 The crux of Firsov’s claim is that SAS refused to board him and his cat on an international
3 flight leaving from San Francisco International Airport (SFO). See Dkt. No. 40 at ECF p. 3-4. He
4 || claims this refusal constitutes a “delay forever” under the Montreal Convention. /d. The Montreal
5 Convention covers delays, but it does not cover a refusal to board, which is instead considered
6 || “nonperformance of a contract” and is governed by “the law of [the passenger’s] home country.”
7 Wolgel v. Mexicana Airlines, 821 F.2d 442, 444 (7th Cir. 1987). Consequently, the Montreal
8 Convention claim is dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
9 || the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
10 Firsov may file by September 11, 2026, an amended complaint that plausibly alleges
11 federal subject matter jurisdiction. No new claims or parties may be added without the Court’s
« 12 || priorconsent. Firsov may not file anything other than an amended complaint pending further
13 order. Failure to meet the filing deadline or otherwise conform to this order will result in
Y 14 || dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Q 16 || Dated: August 25, 2026
17
Z 18
JAMESMONATO
19 United Ptates District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 to Europe, appears to be no more than $2634.27 under Firsov’s own calculations. Dkt. No. 40 at
ECF p. 5.
27 2 Wolgel discussed the Warsaw Convention, but “courts have routinely relied upon Warsaw
28 Convention precedent where the equivalent provision in the Montreal Convention 1s substantively
the same.” Narayanan vy. Brit. Airways, 747 F.3d 1125, 1127 n.2 (9th Cir. 2014).