Firsov v. Airlines
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-03784
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sergey Firsov v. United Airlines, Judge Freeman denied Firsov’s motion to reconsider an earlier denial of service-of-process fees.
Sergey Firsov and the defendants, including United Airlines, Inc. and Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft.
What happened
In Sergey Firsov v. United Airlines, Inc., et al., Sergey Firsov, who was representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his request for service-of-process fees. The earlier denial found that he had not shown he properly served the defendants.
Firsov argued that service was proper because a station manager who received documents identified himself as a supervisor. He also argued that he could send the waiver and summons separately and that Lufthansa’s failure to file a separate opposition meant it had agreed to reimburse him.
The court rejected these arguments and denied the reconsideration motion. Judge Beth Labson Freeman concluded that Firsov had not shown a valid basis for reconsideration, had not demonstrated proper service on the defendants, and had not met the requirements for default or default judgment against Lufthansa.
The detailed version
- Firsov v. Airlines · No. 5:25-cv-03784
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
Sergey Firsov, representing himself, moved for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order denying his request for service-of-process fees. The earlier order denied the request because Firsov had not shown that he properly served the defendants as required for recovering costs and fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2). The court also noted that Firsov had previously made an unsuccessful motion for service-of-process fees in a prior related proceeding.
Legal standard
The court explained that trial courts may reconsider or change certain nonfinal orders before final judgment. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and generally require unusual circumstances, such as a relevant change in law, new material facts, or a clear failure to consider important facts or legal arguments. The Northern District of California’s local rules identify similar grounds for reconsideration.
Court’s reasoning
Firsov argued that he properly served the defendants because the station manager who received documents from his process server identified himself as a “supervisor.” The court rejected this argument, explaining that such a supervisor did not qualify under the applicable service rule as an officer, general manager, or authorized agent for service of process. The court said this argument was, at most, disagreement with its earlier decision and was not a proper ground for reconsideration.
Firsov also argued that he was not required to send all documents in one envelope and that he had sent the waiver and summons separately. The court agreed that a plaintiff may first request a waiver of service and later seek costs if the defendant fails to waive service without good cause. But the court emphasized that Firsov still had not shown that he properly served the defendants.
Finally, Firsov argued that Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft, identified in the order as Lufthansa, had effectively agreed to reimburse him because it did not separately oppose his original motion. The court found that Firsov had not complied with the requirements for seeking an entry of default or default judgment and had not shown that he properly served Lufthansa.
Disposition
The court denied Firsov’s motion for reconsideration because he failed to establish grounds for reconsideration.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.