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
- 3
In Firsov v. Church of Scientology, Judge Van Keulen denied summons and sealing requests and reset the filing-fee deadline.
The order directly affects Leonid Firsov, the minor plaintiff proceeding through Sergey Firsov, by denying issuance of a summons, denying sealing of the filing-fee applications, and setting a July 14, 2025 payment deadline.
What happened
In Firsov v. Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley, the minor plaintiff, through his parent, asked the court to require issuance of a summons and to seal his applications to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court had previously denied the plaintiff’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee and required payment instead. Because the fee had not been paid and the applications had not been approved, the court ruled that a summons was not currently required to be issued. It also found that the plaintiff had not shown a sufficient basis to seal the applications in full.
Judge Van Keulen denied the request for a summons and denied the request to seal the applications. She reset the filing-fee deadline to July 14, 2025; if the plaintiff does not pay by then, the court said it will issue an order recommending reassignment to a district judge and dismissal without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Firsov v. Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley · No. 5:25-cv-03265
- Susan Van Keulen
- July 8, 2025
Background
Leonid Firsov, a minor proceeding through his parent Sergey Firsov, brought this action against the Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley and the Church of Scientology Mission of Silicon Valley. The court had previously denied his applications to proceed without paying the filing fee and had ordered him to pay the fee. The fee deadline was later stayed while a motion to withdraw consent was pending. Judge Beth L. Freeman denied that motion on July 7, 2025.
Firsov then filed a motion asking the court to require issuance of a summons and to seal his applications to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Request for a Summons
The court denied the request to compel issuance of a summons. It explained that Firsov’s renewed applications to proceed without paying the filing fee had previously been denied with prejudice. Because he had not paid the filing fee and his application had not been granted, the court concluded that he was not entitled to have a summons issued at that time. The court also noted that a summons issued in another related proceeding did not control this case and that summonses may be issued in error and later corrected.
Request to Seal the Applications
The court also denied the request to seal the applications. It reiterated that sealing requests must be narrowly limited to material that can properly be kept from public view. The court explained that merely pointing to personal or confidential information is not enough to justify sealing an entire filing. The opinion states that the court had previously considered the sealing issue and again denied the request.
Fee Deadline and Disposition
The court denied the motion and reset the filing-fee deadline to July 14, 2025. The order did not dismiss the case. Instead, it stated that if Firsov fails to pay by that deadline, the court will issue an order recommending that the case be reassigned to a district judge, with a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.