Firsov v. Aerovias Del Continente Americano S.A. Avianca
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:25-cv-05481
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sergey Firsov v. Avianca, Judge Demarchi denied plaintiffs’ motion to recover service costs because they did not show compliance with service rules.
The ruling affected Sergey Firsov and Kateryna Pomogaibo’s request to recover service costs and Avianca’s opposition to that request.
What happened
In Sergey Firsov, et al. v. Aerovias Del Continente Americano S.A. Avianca, Sergey Firsov and Kateryna Pomogaibo, who represented themselves, asked to recover $150 they said they paid for formal service of the summons and complaint.
They said they notified Avianca about the lawsuit and sent waiver documents, but Avianca did not return a signed waiver. Avianca opposed the request, arguing that plaintiffs had not shown proper notice to an authorized person or proper formal service. The court found that plaintiffs’ evidence did not establish these facts.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied the motion. The court ruled that plaintiffs had not shown compliance with the federal service-waiver requirements or that they completed formal service for which they could recover expenses.
The detailed version
- Firsov v. Aerovias Del Continente Americano S.A. Avianca · No. 5:25-cv-05481
- Virginia Demarchi
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Sergey Firsov and Kateryna Pomogaibo represented themselves. They moved to recover costs for service of process, stating that they had paid $150 for “formal service” of the summons and complaint. Plaintiffs said they provided Avianca with notice of the action, the summons, the complaint, and a waiver of summons on July 7, 2025. They also said Avianca refused to communicate and return a signed waiver within 60 days and that Avianca was personally served at San Francisco International Airport on September 29, 2025.
Avianca opposed the motion. It argued that plaintiffs had not shown that they gave the notice required by Rule 4(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or that they properly served Avianca afterward. According to Avianca, the record at most showed an attempt to provide notice or service to a staff member at its airport ticket counter.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 4 allows a plaintiff to ask a defendant to waive formal service of a summons. For a corporation, the request must be given to an officer, managing or general agent, or another agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service. The request also must inform the defendant of the consequences of waiving or not waiving service.
The court reviewed three proofs of service filed in the case. The first stated that Mr. Firsov served a summons on Qatar Airways Group, which was not a party to this action. Its accompanying affidavit stated that Oleksandra Pomohaibo unsuccessfully attempted to serve an employee at the Avianca check-in counter at San Francisco International Airport. A later proof of service stated that Myron Pomohaibo served a summons on a person identified as “supervisor Daffny in Avianca uniform” at the airport.
The court held that these filings did not show that plaintiffs gave notice to an Avianca officer, managing or general agent, or authorized service agent. The record also contained no evidence that the notice explained the consequences of waiving or not waiving service. The court further held that, even if plaintiffs had complied with the notice requirements, they had not shown that they subsequently completed formal service for which they were entitled to recover expenses.
Disposition
The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to recover costs for service of process. The opinion did not decide the underlying merits of plaintiffs’ claims against Avianca.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.