Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:26-cv-00305
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines, Judge Monato dismissed Firsov’s Montreal Convention claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, allowing amendment.
Sergey Firsov’s federal Montreal Convention claim was dismissed, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims. He was allowed to amend to allege federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
What happened
In Sergey Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, pro se plaintiff Sergey Firsov alleged that SAS refused to board him and his cat on an international flight from San Francisco. He brought claims under the Montreal Convention, contract law, California consumer-protection law, and other state laws.
The court said the Montreal Convention covers flight delays, but not a refusal to board. It dismissed that claim and declined to hear the remaining state-law claims because the federal claim no longer supplied a basis for federal jurisdiction.
Judge Monato allowed Firsov to file an amended complaint by September 11, 2026, that plausibly alleges federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court barred new claims or parties without prior permission and warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal under Rule 41(b).
The detailed version
- Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden · No. 3:26-cv-00305
- Thomas Hixson
- Aug. 25, 2026
Background
Pro se plaintiff Sergey Firsov sued Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, referred to as SAS. His amended complaint alleged that SAS refused to board him and his cat on an international flight leaving from San Francisco International Airport. He asserted claims for breach of the Montreal Convention, breach of contract, violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of business-registration laws.
The court noted that Firsov had been declared a vexatious litigant in California state court and in the Northern District of California and was subject to a pre-filing screening requirement in later cases against airlines. The court said those orders were entered after this case was filed, so it addressed this case’s jurisdictional problem instead.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the Montreal Convention covers delays but does not cover a refusal to board. It characterized refusal to board as nonperformance of a contract governed by applicable national law, rather than as a delay covered by the Convention. The court therefore dismissed Firsov’s Montreal Convention claim.
Because the federal claim was dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over Firsov’s remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Disposition
The court gave Firsov until September 11, 2026, to file an amended complaint that plausibly alleges federal subject-matter jurisdiction. It ordered that no new claims or parties could be added without the court’s prior consent and that Firsov could file nothing other than an amended complaint until further order. The court stated that failure to meet the deadline or otherwise comply would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.