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
STRIKE AND RESETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO
DISMISS
Plaintiff moves to strike defendant’s amended notice of its motion to dismiss (Dkt. No.
17), contending both it and the original motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) were not properly served.
Plaintiff makes two arguments. First, he contends the certificates of service attached to both
documents should have stated they were signed under penalty of perjury “under the laws of the
United States of America.” Plaintiff relies on 28 U.S. Code § 1746. That section, however, only
requires reference to the laws of the United States when a verification is executed outside the
United States. See 28 U.S. Code § 1746 (1). For declarations executed “within the United States,
its territories, possessions, or commonwealths,” no such reference to federal law is required. See
28 U.S. Code § 1746 (2). Although the reference in defendant’s verifications to the laws of the
State of California was not required by the statute either, it does not render them improper or
insufficient.
While his argument is not entirely clear, plaintiff also seems to be objecting that the papers
were served on him by email, when he has not consented in writing to service by that means.
Case 3:25-cv-07709-RS Document 25 Filed 11/04/25 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
Plaintiff is correct that unless and until he provides written consent for service by email, papers
should be served on him by U.S. Mail (or personal service), and certificates of service should
reflect such service. In this instance, however, plaintiff obviously has already received actual
notice of the filings. Moreover, because the briefing schedule was vacated, and is now being reset,
he cannot contend he has been prejudiced. Striking the existing notice and motion and requiring
defendant to refile and re-serve the papers would serve no purpose. Accordingly, the motion to
strike is denied.
Plaintiff has now paid the filing fee, permitting this action to go forward. As noted in a
prior order, plaintiff’s purported “motion” objecting to defendant’s use of judicial notice will be
considered in conjunction with his opposition to the motion to dismiss, which he filed at Dkt. No.
16. To avoid any possible claim of prejudice that might otherwise arise as a result of the
procedural history of this matter, plaintiff may file any supplemental opposition to the motion to
dismiss (not to exceed 15 pages) no later than November 21, 2025. Defendant may file a reply
brief no later than December 3, 2025. The matter will then be submitted without oral argument,
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 4, 2025
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-07709-RS Document 25 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 2