Firsov v. Qatar Airways Group

Background

Pro se plaintiff Sergey Firsov filed two motions: a request for entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) and a motion for default judgment under Rule 55(b). He had also filed an earlier motion asking the court to reconsider how his request for default had been handled. Qatar Airways Group (Q,C.S.C.) opposed the motions.

On October 21, 2025, Firsov filed an application for entry of default judgment. The court struck that filing and directed him to Rule 55(a), which requires a request for entry of default to be made to the Clerk of Court. Firsov later filed a request for entry of default, which the court referred to the Clerk. The Clerk declined to enter default on November 3, 2025.

Legal standards

Under Rule 55(a), the Clerk must enter a party’s default when that party has failed to plead or otherwise defend. Rule 55(b)(1) addresses default judgment when the plaintiff’s claim is for a fixed amount or an amount that can be calculated. Whether to enter default judgment is discretionary, and courts consider the factors identified in Eitel v. McCool, including possible prejudice, the merits and sufficiency of the claim, the amount at stake, the possibility of disputed facts, and the preference for decisions on the merits.

A court may reconsider an interlocutory order before final judgment, but reconsideration is disfavored. The court stated that it may be appropriate when there is newly discovered evidence, clear error, an intervening change in controlling law, or one of the grounds identified in the Northern District of California’s local rules.

Court’s analysis

The court treated Firsov’s two Rule 55 filings as a single motion seeking review of the Clerk’s denial of entry of default. It found that the reconsideration motion was moot because the court had already granted the relief Firsov sought by addressing the filing and referring the later request to the Clerk. The opinion also states that Firsov was entitled to neither default nor default judgment; the court therefore denied the reconsideration motion, and the final order describes it as denied as moot.

The court found that the summons had been handed to an employee at the San Francisco Airport. At most, the court viewed this as an attempt to serve a branch or station manager who was not shown to be an officer, general manager, or authorized agent for service of process. Because Firsov had not properly completed personal service, the court held that he was not entitled to entry of default or default judgment.

The court also considered that Firsov had mailed a request to waive service to Qatar’s registered agent on October 29, 2025. Qatar therefore had until November 28, 2025, to return a signed waiver, and Qatar represented that it intended to do so. The court called the Rule 55 motion frivolous and denied it.

Disposition

The court ordered that the reconsideration motion, ECF No. 34, was DENIED AS MOOT. It also DENIED the Rule 55 motion, which included Firsov’s request for entry of default and motion for default judgment.