Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines of North America

Background

The court addressed three motions filed by Plaintiff Sergey Firsov: a motion for sanctions against two attorneys representing Scandinavian Airlines of North America, Inc. (SANA); a motion to strike SANA’s motion to dismiss; and a motion to recover the cost of serving SANA. The court found the matters suitable for decision without a hearing and vacated the hearing.

Firsov’s Motions

The court denied Firsov’s motion for sanctions. Firsov relied on possible sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent authority. The court found the motion lacked merit. Among other things, Firsov had not shown that defense counsel’s investigation of his family life was improper, and the court found that counsel’s description of him as a vexatious litigant was not patently unreasonable given Firsov’s admission that he had filed approximately 70 cases. The court also rejected arguments about the length of SANA’s filings and whether SANA had to meet and confer before filing its motion to dismiss. The court noted that it had granted SANA’s motion to dismiss.

The court denied Firsov’s motion to strike SANA’s motion to dismiss. The court stated that the motion to strike was patently meritless because the motion to dismiss had already been granted before Firsov filed the motion to strike. The court also stated that Firsov had essentially conceded that the motion to dismiss had merit to the extent SANA argued it was not the proper entity to be sued. In addition, Firsov did not show that the motion to dismiss contained material subject to striking under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which concerns insufficient defenses and redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court further relied on its prior ruling that defense counsel had not violated the local rule governing page length. It noted that an order by Judge Freeman supporting Firsov’s position had already been vacated.

The court denied Firsov’s motion to recover the cost of service. It stated that the court had already denied the request twice, including once in an order denying reconsideration.

Sanctions Requested by SANA/SAS

The court separately addressed a sanctions request by SANA or SAS, described as the now-substituted defendant. The court stated that it has inherent authority to impose sanctions, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, for bad-faith litigation conduct. Although the court said Firsov arguably acted in bad faith in connection with all of the conduct identified, it imposed sanctions at this stage only for the motion to strike.

The court granted SANA/SAS’s request for sanctions based on Firsov’s filing of that motion. It found the motion patently meritless and filed in bad faith, emphasizing Firsov’s reliance on an opinion by Judge Freeman that had already been vacated and that Firsov knew about when he filed the motion.

Next Steps and Disposition

The court ordered SANA/SAS to file, within one week, a brief and counsel declaration addressing the attorneys’ fees incurred while opposing the motion to strike, including hourly rates and hours worked. Firsov may file a response within one week after that submission. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 41, 44, and 45. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on November 6, 2025.