Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden
- Alex Tse
- 3:25-cv-03689
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sergey Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines, Judge Tse denied fee-waiver requests, extended the payment deadline, and disallowed installments.
Sergey Firsov’s claims against Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden were affected. The court required him to pay the $405 filing fee by August 20, 2026, and stated that the action against SAS would be dismissed without prejudice if he did not do so.
What happened
In Sergey Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, the court considered Sergey Firsov’s request to avoid paying the $405 filing fee after his claims against the airlines were separated.
Firsov submitted an updated application to proceed without paying the fee and asked the court to reconsider an earlier denial in a related case. He said his income was consumed by expenses and debts, and alternatively requested a payment plan or more time to pay.
Judge Alex G. Tse denied both requests, finding that Firsov could pay the fee by adjusting or delaying discretionary spending. The judge extended the payment deadline to August 20, 2026, refused monthly installments, and stated that the case against Scandinavian Airlines would be dismissed without prejudice if the fee was not paid by then.
The detailed version
- Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden · No. 3:25-cv-03689
- Alex Tse
- Aug. 13, 2026
Background
The court had previously separated Firsov’s claims against Turk Hava Yollari, A.O., identified in the opinion as Turkish Airlines, from his claims against Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, identified as SAS. The court had ordered Firsov to pay the filing fee by August 11, 2026, if he wanted to continue pursuing his claims against SAS.
Firsov then filed an amended application to proceed without paying the filing fee, commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or IFP. He also moved for reconsideration of an earlier order denying his IFP application in a related case. Alternatively, he requested a payment plan or additional time to pay the $405 filing fee.
Financial information and court’s analysis
Firsov reported gross monthly salary of $10,920 and annual salary of $131,040. He reported that his wife earned $1,000 per month and $12,000 per year. He listed monthly expenses of $3,900 for rent, utilities, food, and clothing; $3,996 in child-support payments; and $3,000 in taxes, for total monthly expenses of $10,896. He also listed $75,000 in credit-card debt, $82,722 owed to attorneys, and $18,000 owed to a landlord.
The court acknowledged that Firsov’s listed expenses consumed almost all of his monthly income and that his debts were significant. But the court relied on Firsov’s repeated international air travel involving himself, his family, and his dogs. It concluded that these trips showed he had money or credit for expensive discretionary purchases and that, by adjusting or delaying discretionary spending, he could pay the filing fee while still affording necessities of life.
Ruling
Judge Alex G. Tse denied Firsov’s amended IFP application and denied his motion for reconsideration. Because Firsov filed both requests by the original payment deadline, the court extended the deadline to August 20, 2026. The court stated that it would not allow payment in monthly installments. It further stated that, if Firsov did not pay the filing fee by August 20, 2026, it would dismiss the action against SAS without prejudice, meaning the stated dismissal would not bar refiling.
Effect of the order
The order did not dismiss the action immediately. It required payment by the extended deadline and specified the consequence if payment was not made.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.