Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden
- Kandis Westmore
- 3:25-cv-03691
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sergey Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines, Judge Westmore denied Firsov’s motion to reconsider an earlier order involving sanctions, filing limits, and service costs.
Sergey Firsov and Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden; the ruling denied Firsov’s reconsideration request and left the earlier sanctions and other rulings in place.
What happened
In Sergey Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, Sergey Firsov asked the court to reconsider an earlier order. That order denied his requests for sanctions, to strike the airline’s motion to dismiss, and to recover service costs, while imposing sanctions on him.
The court said Firsov should first have requested permission to file a reconsideration motion. It also said he had not met the applicable local-rule standard. The court explained that, even if it considered his arguments, they did not justify changing the earlier order, including the court’s conclusions about the filing’s page limit and the sanctions.
Judge Kandis Westmore denied Firsov’s motion to reconsider. The court also stated that Firsov, because he was representing himself, could not represent anyone other than himself in a proposed class action.
The detailed version
- Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden · No. 3:25-cv-03691
- Kandis Westmore
- Dec. 7, 2025
Background
Sergey Firsov moved for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order at Docket No. 58. That earlier order denied Firsov’s motion for sanctions, denied his motion to strike Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden’s motion to dismiss, denied his request to recover service costs, and imposed sanctions on him because the court found that his motion to strike had been filed in bad faith.
Reasons for Denial
The court first stated that Firsov should have sought permission before filing a motion for reconsideration. The court noted that he had previously been told about this procedural requirement and that he was required to follow court rules even though he was representing himself.
The court then held that Firsov had not shown that he should receive permission under Civil Local Rule 7-9. In particular, he had not shown a serious failure by the court to consider important facts or decisive legal arguments that had previously been presented.
The court also considered Firsov’s arguments in the alternative. It rejected his renewed claim that the airline’s motion to dismiss exceeded the 25-page limit, explaining that certain materials—including the table of contents, table of authorities, proof of service, proposed order, and declarations—did not count toward that limit. The court upheld its decision to sanction Firsov, reasoning that he continued to claim the airline had filed too many pages even after an earlier order undermined that position. The court found that Firsov had acted in bad faith.
The court also addressed Firsov’s argument that it was procedurally improper for the airline to request sanctions in opposition briefs. Although the court said that argument was not entirely without merit, it found that Firsov was not prejudiced because he had been able to respond and had raised additional arguments in the reconsideration motion. The court rejected his other arguments concerning sanctions and settlement.
Disposition
The court denied Firsov’s motion to reconsider and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 61. The court also advised that, as a self-represented litigant, Firsov had no authority to represent anyone other than himself in the proposed class action he described.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.