Firsov v. Skyscanner, Inc

Background

Self-represented plaintiff Sergey Firsov filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee, commonly called an IFP application. The court previously denied that application and ordered him to pay the $405 filing fee by June 24, 2025. Firsov had not paid the fee when the court issued this order.

Firsov then filed an amended IFP application, a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier denial, and a motion asking Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu to disqualify herself. The court also treated his disqualification motion as including a late request to seal his original and amended IFP applications.

Disqualification and Sealing

The court denied the disqualification motion. Firsov argued that the court’s refusal to issue summonses and its failure to seal his first IFP application showed bias. The court explained that actions taken during the ordinary course of the case generally are not grounds for disqualification and that the court was not required to issue summonses while the filing fee remained unpaid.

The court also denied the sealing request. Firsov had not filed the required motion to seal at the same time as the documents and had not explained why the applications should be sealed. The California rules he cited apply to California state courts, not federal courts. The court found no apparent basis for sealing the applications.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court denied Firsov’s motion for reconsideration. Under the applicable local rule, reconsideration may be based on a previously unknown material difference in fact or law, new material facts or a change in law, or a clear failure to consider important facts or decisive legal arguments. The court found that Firsov had not shown any of those grounds.

Firsov relied in part on a ruling in his case against Alaska Airlines. The court stated that this did not change its earlier decision because that court had also denied his IFP application. The court further stated that courts in the district had consistently denied Firsov’s IFP applications based on his income and discretionary spending.

Amended IFP Application

The court denied the amended IFP application. It again relied on Firsov’s income, assets, and discretionary spending, and noted other recent decisions denying IFP applications filed by Firsov or by Firsov and his wife.

The court gave Firsov a final opportunity to pay the $405 filing fee by July 7, 2025. It warned that failing to pay could result in dismissal of the action.

Disposition

The court denied Firsov’s disqualification motion, motion for reconsideration, and amended IFP application. It also denied the request to seal the IFP applications. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.