Firsov v. Alaska Airlines
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:25-cv-02841
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Firsov v. Alaska Airlines, Judge Cousins ordered Sergey Firsov to explain federal jurisdiction or amend his complaint, warning dismissal could be recommended.
Sergey Firsov and Alaska Airlines, Inc.; the order requires Firsov to address federal jurisdiction before the case can proceed.
What happened
In Firsov v. Alaska Airlines, Sergey Firsov, representing himself, seeks reimbursement of a $100 pet fee from Alaska Airlines, Inc. He asserts claims under the Montreal Convention and for breach of contract.
The court questioned whether the complaint establishes federal subject matter jurisdiction. It specifically said the complaint does not explain how Alaska Airlines’ failure to reimburse the pet fee violates the Montreal Convention or what right and remedy that treaty provides.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered Firsov to file an amended complaint or a written explanation by May 16, 2025. The court warned that if he does not respond on time, it will recommend dismissal; the order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Firsov v. Alaska Airlines · No. 5:25-cv-02841
- Nathanael Cousins
- Apr. 18, 2025
Background
Sergey Firsov filed a civil case against Alaska Airlines, Inc. seeking reimbursement of a $100 pet fee paid in connection with a multi-leg international airplane trip in March 2025. The last leg of the trip was an Alaska Airlines flight from Los Angeles to San Jose. Firsov asserted two causes of action: one under the Montreal Convention and one for breach of contract. He is representing himself.
The court had previously denied Firsov’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee, and a further hearing on that fee-waiver application was set for April 23, 2025. This order addressed a separate issue: whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.
Jurisdiction issue
The court explained that federal courts must independently determine whether they have subject matter jurisdiction. The party bringing the case, here Firsov, bears responsibility for showing that jurisdiction exists. The court identified two common bases for federal jurisdiction: diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction. Firsov’s complaint appeared to rely on federal-question jurisdiction under the Montreal Convention.
The court described the Montreal Convention as an international treaty governing certain rules for international air transportation. It quoted the treaty provision addressing international carriage performed by successive carriers, including situations in which a segment occurs entirely within one country. But the court said Firsov’s complaint did not explain how Alaska Airlines’ failure to reimburse the $100 pet fee violated the treaty. The court also said Firsov did not identify where the Montreal Convention creates a right to have a dog accepted in the cabin without charge or provides a remedy for the alleged violation.
Order
The court ordered Firsov to file either a first amended complaint or a written explanation showing how federal subject matter jurisdiction is satisfied. The filing deadline is May 16, 2025. The court cautioned that failure to respond on time would lead it to recommend dismissal of the case. The order itself did not dismiss the case or decide the breach-of-contract claim or the merits of the Montreal Convention claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.