Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden

Background

Sergey Firsov sued Scandinavian Airlines System, which the opinion calls “SAS.” The opinion states that he initially sued the wrong entity, Scandinavian Airlines of North America, and refers to the defendants in the sanctions proceedings as “SANA/SAS.”

Firsov’s first amended complaint described two international flights. On the first, he alleged that the airline gave him a vegetarian meal instead of a chicken meal, refused to provide another chicken meal, and limited him to one free drink. On the second, he alleged that an air-conditioning problem made the air too dry, harming his health and the health of his dogs, which traveled in the cabin area. He asserted claims involving the Montreal Convention, alleged rights to information before a flight, fraud, false advertising, food-safety and packaging rules, health and food-safety laws, breach of contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and California business-registration laws.

The pending motions were SANA/SAS’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Firsov’s motion to strike that sanctions motion, and Firsov’s motion for sanctions against defense counsel. SANA/SAS sought to end the lawsuit, have Firsov declared a vexatious litigant with prefiling review of future consumer lawsuits, and receive more than $12,000 in attorney fees.

Rule 11 analysis

Rule 11 requires attorneys and unrepresented parties to certify that their filings have factual support, a legally arguable basis, and no improper purpose. The court explained that sanctions are an extraordinary remedy generally reserved for clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable, legally unsupported, or improperly motivated filings.

The court assumed for purposes of the sanctions motion that the Montreal Convention displaced Firsov’s other causes of action. It nevertheless concluded that the Montreal Convention claim was not frivolous. Although purely emotional-distress damages generally are not available under the Convention, Firsov alleged that he was physically affected by the food and drink incident because he was hungry and thirsty. The court expressly did not decide whether that claim would survive a motion to dismiss.

The court also found that the air-conditioning-related claim was not frivolous. Firsov’s allegation of personal bodily injury was conclusory, but he alleged that his dogs were harmed and required hospital treatment. The court stated that dogs could arguably qualify as baggage under the Convention. It also stated that Firsov’s position concerning venue or personal jurisdiction was erroneous, but found the legal analysis sufficiently subtle that sanctions were not warranted. The court further noted that terminating sanctions would not be appropriate because at least the food-and-drink portion of the claim was not frivolous.

Because the Montreal Convention claim was not frivolous, the court rejected SANA/SAS’s argument that the lawsuit was brought for an improper purpose. It denied terminating sanctions. It denied the request for a vexatious-litigant declaration and prefiling review without prejudice because the court was not dismissing the case at that point.

The court deemed SANA/SAS’s request for $12,347.50 in Rule 11 attorney fees moot because it had already imposed monetary sanctions on Firsov in an earlier order for conduct related to his motion to strike. The court declined to revisit that ruling.

Motions to strike and for sanctions

The court denied Firsov’s motion to strike. It found that the sanctions motion did not exceed the page limit, that Firsov cited no authority supporting his argument that a specially appearing party could not seek Rule 11 sanctions, and that the court’s earlier finding that a sanctions request was premature did not make the current request premature.

The court also denied Firsov’s separate motion for sanctions. It was unclear whether he had complied with Rule 11’s required 21-day period for withdrawing or correcting a challenged filing. The court additionally found that the motion lacked merit for reasons similar to those supporting denial of the motion to strike.

Prior sanction and additional case directions

The court reaffirmed its prior order imposing sanctions on Firsov and awarded SANA/SAS $722 for attorney fees connected to its opposition to Firsov’s motion to strike. Firsov was ordered to meet and confer with defense counsel about conveying the money and to pay it by December 31, 2025. The court stated that failure to pay could lead to civil-contempt proceedings.

The court temporarily stayed the briefing and hearing schedule for Firsov’s motion to amend the complaint to add a retaliation claim. It ordered SAS to answer or move to dismiss the first amended complaint by December 31, 2025, and prohibited further motions until the court decided any motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The court denied SANA/SAS’s motion for sanctions, denied Firsov’s motion to strike, and denied Firsov’s motion for sanctions. It reaffirmed the prior sanctions order and awarded SANA/SAS $722. This order disposed of Docket Nos. 69, 76, and 77.