Firsov v. Austrian Airlines AG

Background

Sergey Firsov sued Austrian Airlines AG over events during a multi-leg international airplane trip in March 2023. He sought reimbursement for tickets for himself and his dogs, along with other damages. He alleged that the airline restricted his and his dogs’ access to the airplane corridor and bathroom, causing or contributing to damage to his baggage and other injuries.

Firsov represented himself. The court had previously denied his application to proceed without paying the filing fee and had set June 30, 2025, as the deadline to pay the fee or risk dismissal.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court issued an order to show cause concerning federal subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. Federal courts must independently determine whether that authority exists. The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction generally requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint. The complaint stated that jurisdiction was based on federal questions, including the Montreal Convention, discrimination, civil rights, breach of contract, the Animal Welfare Act, and animal abuse.

The court concluded that the complaint, as currently pleaded, did not adequately allege a federal claim.

Claims Discussed by the Court

Montreal Convention. Firsov alleged in Counts One and Two that Austrian Airlines violated the Montreal Convention, an international treaty governing certain claims involving international air transportation. In Count One, he argued that the airline was responsible for baggage damage caused by dog urine and bad smell after its agents restricted access to the corridor and bathroom. The court stated that carrier responsibility for damage to unchecked baggage requires fault by the carrier or its servants or agents. It found that Firsov had not shown the airline’s fault, identified a source for the alleged duty of care, or explained how the treaty provided the remedies he requested, including ticket costs, dog costs, emotional-distress damages, and punitive damages.

In Count Two, Firsov alleged that the airline failed to inform passengers that access to the toilet was restricted when traveling with an animal or any bag. The court found that he had not identified where the Montreal Convention created the alleged duty or provided a remedy for its violation.

Air Carrier Access Act. In Count Three, Firsov alleged discrimination under the Air Carrier Access Act, a federal law barring air carriers from discriminating against people with physical or mental impairments. The court found that he had not alleged required elements, including that he had a physical or mental impairment substantially limiting one or more major life activities. The court also stated that Firsov’s apparent argument that he was discriminated against because he is Russian was not relevant to an Air Carrier Access Act claim.

Civil-rights claim. In Count Eight, Firsov alleged a Fourteenth Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim under Section 1983 generally requires conduct by a person acting under color of state law, meaning conduct fairly attributable to the state. The court found that Firsov had not adequately alleged that Austrian Airlines acted under color of state law. Alleging that the airline was closely regulated by the government was not enough.

Breach of contract. Firsov alleged breach of contract in Counts Four and Six. The court stated that breach of contract is a state-law claim and therefore did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Animal Welfare Act and animal-abuse claims. In Count Nine, Firsov referenced the Animal Welfare Act but did not identify the section under which he was suing. In Counts Seven and Nine, he also referred to the PETS Act and federal and state animal-cruelty laws. The court found that he had not identified the statutory provisions under which he sought relief or alleged a federal violation adequately.

Order

The court ordered Firsov to file a first amended complaint or a written response explaining how federal subject-matter jurisdiction was satisfied by June 30, 2025. The order stated that, if Firsov believed the court’s analysis was incorrect, he could instead file supplemental briefing. The court cautioned that it would recommend dismissal if he did not respond on time. The order did not itself dismiss the case.