Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden
- Kandis Westmore
- 3:25-cv-03691
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sergey Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines, Judge Chen denied disqualification, granted reconsideration, but left the expanded prefiling requirement in place.
Sergey Firsov received no further relief, and the expanded requirement that his specified lawsuits undergo prefiling review remains in effect. Judge Edward M. Chen remains assigned to the case.
What happened
In Sergey Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, Sergey Firsov asked the court to disqualify the judge and reconsider an order expanding a requirement that he obtain court review before filing certain lawsuits. He argued that the judge had discussed punishing him with other judges and that the expanded requirement was issued without notice or a chance to be heard.
The court rejected the disqualification request, finding that Firsov’s accusations were false and that disagreement with an unfavorable ruling was not a valid reason to remove the judge. The court granted reconsideration because Firsov raised a plausible argument that the court may have made a legal error by expanding the requirement without first giving him notice and an opportunity to respond. But the court concluded that he had now received that opportunity and had not shown why the expanded requirement was improper.
Judge Edward M. Chen denied the motion to disqualify and granted the motion to reconsider, but provided no further relief. The court held that the expanded prefiling requirement was justified by Firsov’s litigation history and conduct.
The detailed version
- Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden · No. 3:25-cv-03691
- Kandis Westmore
- Aug. 31, 2026
Background
The court had previously imposed a prefiling-review requirement on Firsov and later expanded its scope after finding that he had acted in bad faith and attempted to work around the requirement. The pending motions were Firsov’s motion to disqualify the judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455 and his motion to reconsider the order expanding the prefiling requirement.
Motion to Disqualify
The court denied disqualification. Firsov claimed that, before a hearing on the prefiling order, he saw several judges discussing him and that Judge Chen said he would issue a prefiling order because he personally disliked Firsov. The court said those accusations were false. Judge Chen stated that he had been having lunch with court staff in the courtroom, that no meeting with other judges occurred, and that he made no such statement.
Firsov also relied on the court’s expansion of the prefiling requirement. The court ruled that this argument merely challenged an unfavorable ruling and was not a basis for disqualification. The court explained that rulings and opinions formed during a case generally do not establish the basis for disqualification under § 455.
Motion to Reconsider
The court granted reconsideration because Firsov raised a colorable, meaning legally plausible, argument that the court had committed legal error by expanding the prefiling requirement without first giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court noted that due process requires notice and an opportunity to respond before a prefiling order is imposed. It did not decide that those protections were necessarily required before expanding an order that had already been imposed.
The court nevertheless concluded that Firsov had now received notice and an opportunity to respond because he received the expanded order and filed the reconsideration motion. The court found that he had not explained why the expansion was improper. It also stated that his prior litigation history remained serious, that his conduct was frivolous and harassing, and that his attempt to work around the earlier order was in bad faith. After considering the four factors identified in the relevant appellate precedent, the court held that the expanded scope was justified.
Disposition
Judge Edward M. Chen denied the motion to disqualify and granted the motion to reconsider. The court issued no further relief to Firsov and held that the expanded prefiling requirement was proper. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 126 and 127.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.