Firsov v. Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley
Firsov, minor, by & through parent Sergey Firsov v. Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:25-cv-03265
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In L.F. v. Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley, Judge Van Keulen denied disqualification and fee-waiver applications, unsealed a filing, and reset the payment deadline.
The order affects L.F. and parent Sergey Firsov’s requests to disqualify the magistrate judge, keep a fee application sealed, and proceed without prepaying the filing fee. It does not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
In L.F., a minor proceeding through parent Sergey Firsov, v. Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley, the plaintiff asked to disqualify the magistrate judge and filed renewed applications to avoid paying the filing fee. One fee application was filed under seal.
The plaintiff argued that the case was moving too slowly and that the court should have sealed the fee application without a separate request. The court also considered the financial information for L.F. and Sergey Firsov, including their income and expenses.
Judge Van Keulen denied the disqualification motion and the fee-waiver applications, and directed the Clerk to unseal the sealed application. She reset the filing-fee deadline to June 26, 2025, and stated that failure to pay could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Firsov v. Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley · No. 5:25-cv-03265
- Susan Van Keulen
- June 5, 2025
Background
L.F. initiated the case through parent Sergey Firsov against the Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley and the Church of Scientology Mission of Silicon Valley. L.F. previously requested permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court denied that request without prejudice because it did not include Sergey Firsov’s financial information as the minor’s parent. L.F. then filed renewed fee-waiver applications, including one filed under seal, and moved to disqualify the magistrate judge.
Motion to Disqualify
The motion cited California’s judicial-disqualification statute, but the court explained that federal magistrate judges are evaluated under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Under that statute, disqualification is required when a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts could question the judge’s impartiality, including because of personal bias. The alleged bias generally must come from outside the judicial proceedings; disagreement with a judge’s rulings is not enough.
The plaintiff argued that the case was not proceeding quickly enough and that the court should have ordered the Clerk to seal the fee application without a separate request. The court found that it had acted promptly and that the plaintiff was responsible for requesting a seal under the district’s local rules. The court also rejected arguments that the plaintiff was disrespected by being asked to provide the parent’s financial information or that the judge’s rulings were grounds for disqualification. The court noted that no hearing had been requested or held in this case. It denied the motion to disqualify.
Unsealing the Application
The court explained that court records are generally available to the public. A party seeking to seal a document ordinarily must file a motion that explains the legal standard and provides reasons and supporting evidence. L.F. had not filed that type of motion. The court also found that marking the document “Confidential” did not satisfy the applicable “good cause” or “compelling reasons” standards. It therefore directed the Clerk to unseal Dkt. 14.
Fee-Waiver Applications
A court may allow a plaintiff to proceed without prepaying filing fees when the plaintiff shows an inability to pay. The court considered L.F.’s financial information together with Sergey Firsov’s information. The applications showed that Sergey Firsov had approximately $8,000 in monthly net income and that L.F.’s mother had approximately $700 in monthly net income. The court also considered monthly payments and expenses and calculated that approximately $819 remained each month after the listed amounts.
The court concluded that L.F. had not shown an inability to pay the filing fee. It also relied on findings in other cases in the district involving similar financial information. The court denied the fee-waiver applications.
Disposition
The court denied the motion to disqualify, directed the Clerk to unseal Dkt. 14, and denied the fee-waiver applications at Dkts. 13 and 14. It reset the deadline for paying the filing fee to June 26, 2025. The court stated that, if the fee was not paid, it would issue an order directing that the case be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.