Firsov v. American Airlines, Inc.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SERGEY FIRSOV,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-07709-RS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECONSIDER AND AMENDED IFP
APPLICATION, SETTING NEW
DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT OF
FILING FEE, AND SUSPENDING
PROCEEDINGS ON MOTION TO
DISMISS
Pro se plaintiff Sergey Firsov has filed nearly 20 actions in this district, most of which
name airlines as defendants, and all of which have been commenced in 2025. In this one, Firsov
complains American Airlines improperly charged him $150 to carry his dog in the cabin on a
domestic flight that he contends was a continuation of an international flight for which he had
already paid a pet fee. It appears Firsov’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis have been
denied in all, or nearly all, the other cases. See L.F. v. Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley, No.
25-cv-03265-SVK, ECF 16 at 6–7 (collecting cases where Firsov’s IFP applications have been
denied.)
The magistrate judge to whom this action was initially assigned denied Firsov’s IFP
application and ordered him to pay the full filing fee no later than November 7, 2025. Dkt. No. 6.
Firsov’s pending motion for reconsideration of that order, Dkt. No. 11, filed without leave in
contravention of Civil Local Rule 7-8, is without merit, even overlooking its procedural
impropriety. It is therefore denied, as is Firsov’s subsequent “amended”
Case 3:25-cv-07709-RS Document 22 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 2

CASE NO. 25-cv-07709-RS
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern
 District of California
IFP application, Dkt. No. 18.
Given that Firsov may have believed his further efforts to obtain IFP status relieved him
from the obligation to pay the full filing fee by November 7, 2025, that deadline is hereby
extended to November 14, 2025. If Firsov fails to pay the full filing fee by that date, this action
will be dismissed without prejudice, without further notice.
Further briefing of the pending motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 7, is suspended, and the
hearing set for November 20, 2025, is vacated. In the event Firsov pays the filing fee, a further
scheduling order regarding the motion to dismiss will issue.
Firsov’s purported motion filed at Dkt. No. 12 is terminated, as it does not represent
request for relief properly presented by motion. The argument presented—i.e., that the motion to
dismiss improperly relies on extrinsic matter—will be considered if and when the motion to
dismiss is adjudicated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 29, 2025
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-07709-RS Document 22 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 2