Firsov v. Airlines
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-03784
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Firsov v. United Airlines, Judge Freeman denied Sergey Firsov’s motion to disqualify her, finding he had not shown bias or questionable impartiality.
Sergey Firsov, who represented himself, was affected by the denial of his motion. The order also allowed Judge Beth Labson Freeman to continue handling the case; the defendants were not required to respond to the motion.
What happened
Sergey Firsov v. United Airlines, Inc., et al. concerned Firsov’s request to disqualify the judge handling his case. Firsov represented himself. The request followed the court’s denial of his motion for sanctions and its decision that sanctions against him were necessary because of his conduct in the proceedings.
Firsov argued that the judge had protected opposing attorneys because she had previously been an attorney and had admonished him. The court treated these arguments as a disagreement with its earlier rulings and concluded that they did not show that the judge was biased or that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Firsov’s motion for disqualification. The order states that Firsov failed to meet his burden of showing bias, prejudice, or reasonably questionable impartiality.
The detailed version
- Firsov v. Airlines · No. 5:25-cv-03784
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 11, 2025
Background
Sergey Firsov, proceeding without a lawyer, moved to disqualify Judge Beth Labson Freeman under 28 U.S.C. § 455. The motion followed the court’s December 1, 2025 order denying Firsov’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions. In that order, the court determined that sanctions against Firsov were necessary to deter what it described as a pattern of bad-faith, vexatious conduct. The court ordered the defendants to submit information about the reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in opposing the sanctions motion and gave Firsov seven days to respond and explain why sanctions should not be issued. The defendants filed their brief and declaration on December 5, 2025. Instead of filing the response, Firsov filed a motion for reconsideration and the motion to disqualify the judge.
Legal standard
Section 455 requires a judge to disqualify herself when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It also requires disqualification when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts. The court applied the standard asking whether a reasonable person who knew all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court explained that filing an affidavit does not automatically disqualify a judge, that the judge may determine whether the affidavit is legally sufficient, and that the party seeking disqualification bears a substantial burden to show bias.
Arguments and analysis
Firsov argued that disqualification was appropriate because the court had “protected opposite attorneys[] because in the past she was an attorney” and had “admonished Plaintiff.” The court found that he had not shown that disqualification was warranted under section 455. It concluded that his motion was based on disagreement with the order denying his sanctions request. The court stated that judicial rulings alone almost never provide a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.
Disposition
The court denied Firsov’s motion for disqualification. It found that he had failed to show that Judge Beth Labson Freeman was biased or prejudiced, or that her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.