Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines of North America, 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.
SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM
DENMARK-NORWAY-SWEDEN,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-03691-EMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO MODIFY OR STAY
CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER
Docket No. 139
Mr. Firsov has moved the Court to modify or stay its civil contempt order. He asserts that
he has lost his job because “Judge called to [his] work with complaints” and, as a result, he was
“fired immediately.” Mot. at 1; see also Mot. at 2 (“On 09/24/26 Plaintiff has got a call, that he is
fired immediately for harassing federal and using company devices inapprop[r]iate[ly].”). He also
claims that he has no savings.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Mr. Firsov’s appeal has not divested the Court of
jurisdiction over the pending motion. Mr. Firsov’s appeal – on its face – concerns the vexatious
litigant order issued by the Court. The pending motion concerns a different order issued by the
Court – i.e., its civil contempt order.
Turning to the merits of Mr. Firsov’s motion, the Court DENIES his request for relief.
First, the Court did not call Mr. Firsov’s employer to complain about him. Second, Plaintiff has
failed to sufficiently establish that he cannot pay the $722 monetary sanctions which he has had
months to pay. See Docket No. 132 (Order at 1) (noting that Mr. Firsov was to pay the monetary
sanctions by December 31, 2025); Docket No. 136 (Order at 3) (noting that, “in 2026 alone, Mr.
Firsov seems to have paid more than $4,000 in filing fees”). The coercive sanctions ($50/day) do
Case 3:25-cv-03691-EMC Document 143 Filed 10/07/26 Page 1 of 2

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
not begin until October 15, 2026. Mr. Firsov can avoid the coercive sanctions by paying
SANA/SAS the $722 owed. While the Court has ordered compensatory sanctions as well
(SANA/SAS’s attorneys’ fees), that amount has yet to be determined.
This order disposes of Docket No. 139.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 7, 2026
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03691-EMC Document 143 Filed 10/07/26 Page 2 of 2