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 RE CIVIL CONTEMPT
COMPENSATORY SANCTIONS
Docket Nos. 144, 146
Previously, the Court found Mr. Firsov in civil contempt because he had failed to comply
with a Court order that he pay SANA/SAS $722 as a monetary sanction. See Docket No. 132
(Order at 3). The Court issued two civil contempt sanctions: (1) coercive sanctions of $50/day
until the $722 monetary sanctions were paid1 and (2) compensatory sanctions consisting of
SANA/SAS’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in moving for civil contempt once he failed to
pay the first installment payment on July 2, 2026.2 See Docket No. 132 (Order at 4). The parties
were instructed to provide supplemental briefing on the amount of attorneys’ fees. See Docket
No. 132 (Order at 5). SANA/SAS filed a brief and supporting evidence to support a claim of
1 Although the Court could have held that coercive sanctions would begin to accrue immediately,
it did not do so. It gave Mr. Firsov a three-week grace period: in other words, Mr. Firsov had
three weeks to pay the $722 monetary sanctions, in which case he could entirely avoid any
coercive sanctions. See Docket No. 132 (Order at 4).
2 The Court could have ordered that Mr. Firsov be held accountable for attorneys’ fees as of
January or March 2026, when SANA/SAS first indicated that they were seeking a finding of civil
contempt against Mr. Firsov based on his failure to pay the $722 monetary sanctions awarded by
the Court. See Docket No. 102 (notice); Docket No. 105 (motion). As above, the Court did not do
so. Instead, it took a more measured approach and only awarded fees incurred as of July 2026,
after Mr. Firsov failed to make the first payment ($120) of an installment plan that he himself had
proposed. See Docket No. 112 (minutes).
Case 3:25-cv-03691-EMC Document 149 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 6

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
$1,520 in attorneys’ fees (4 hours of attorney time at an hourly rate of $380). In his response, Mr.
Firsov addressed not only the amount of compensatory sanctions but also (outside of the scope of
the Court’s order) the $722 monetary sanctions and the coercive sanctions.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court affirms its prior rulings on the $722 monetary
sanctions and the coercive sanctions. In addition, the Court orders that Mr. Firsov pay
SANA/SAS compensatory sanctions in the amount of $1,520.
I. DISCUSSION
A. Monetary Sanctions of $722
On November 6, 2025, the Court granted SANA/SAS’s request for sanctions based on Mr.
Firsov’s filing of a motion to strike, which was patently meritless and filed in bad faith.3 See
Docket No. 58 (Order at 4). On December 15, 2025, the Court determined the amount of
monetary sanctions to be paid: $722. The Court ordered Mr. Firsov to pay the $722 by December
31, 2025, and expressly warned Mr. Firsov that he risked being held in civil contempt if he failed
to pay. See Docket No. 88 (Order at 12). On December 22, 2025, the Court denied Mr. Firsov’s
motion to reconsider the $722 monetary sanctions.4 See Docket No. 90 (order).
Since December 31, 2025, Mr. Firsov has failed to pay any amount of the $722 monetary
sanctions. He failed to do so even while he was employed. See Firsov v. United Airlines, Inc.,
No. C-26-6165 JD (N.D. Cal.) (Docket No. 27) (in IFP application, stating that, prior to
9/25/2026, he was paid $10,920 per month before taxes). He failed to do so even after he
voluntarily proposed a six-month installment plan under which he only had to pay about $120 per
month. Docket No. 112 (minutes). He failed to do so even though he successfully paid the filing
fees for a score of other federal lawsuits. See Docket No. 136 (noting that, in 2026 alone, Mr.
Firsov paid more than $4,000 in filing fees).
/ / /
3 As the Court noted in its order, Mr. Firsov had arguably acted in bad faith in other ways, but the
Court again took a measured approach and limited its sanctions order to the filing of the motion to
strike only. See Docket No. 58 (Order at 3-4).
4 The Court also rejected an attempt by Mr. Firsov to stay or set-off the monetary sanctions. See
Docket No. 135 (order).
Case 3:25-cv-03691-EMC Document 149 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 6

3
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
Given this history, the Court rejects Mr. Firsov’s renewed request that he be relieved of the
obligation to pay the $722 monetary award. To the extent Mr. Firsov argues that circumstances
have changed because he lost his job in late September 2026, the Court already entertained that
argument and denied his request for relief. See Docket No. 142 (Order at 1) (stating that “Plaintiff
has failed to sufficiently establish that he cannot pay the $722 monetary sanctions which he has
had months to pay”). The Court further addresses Mr. Firsov’s claimed loss of employment and
inability to pay below.
B. Coercive Sanctions
The Court issued coercive sanctions on September 23, 2026 (as part of its civil contempt
order). See Docket No. 132 (order). It did so after Mr. Firsov (1) had failed to pay the $722
monetary sanctions for months and (2) had been warned on multiple occasions that a failure to pay
could or would result in coercive sanctions. See Docket No. 112 (minutes, filed on 6/18/2026)
(warning about coercive sanctions); Docket No. 117 (order, filed on 8/5/2026) (same); Docket No.
120 (order, filed on 8/10/2026) (same).
On September 25, 2026, Court denied Mr. Firsov’s motion to reconsider civil contempt
sanctions. See Docket No. 136 (order). On October 7, 2026, the Court denied Mr. Firsov’s
motion to modify or stay its civil contempt sanctions. See Docket No. 143 (order). In denying the
motion to modify or stay, the Court considered Mr. Firsov’s claim that he was unable to pay
because he had recently lost his job. It noted that Mr. Firsov could avoid coercive sanctions –
which would not begin to accrue for another week – by paying SANA/SAS the $722 monetary
sanctions.
Given this history, the Court rejects Mr. Firsov’s renewed request that coercive sanctions
be withdrawn. The Court further addresses Mr. Firsov’s claimed loss of employment and inability
to pay below.
C. Compensatory Sanctions
The Court issued compensatory sanctions on September 23, 2026 (as part of its civil
contempt order). See Docket No. 132 (order). It did so after Mr. Firsov (1) had failed to pay the
$722 monetary sanctions for months and (2) had been warned on multiple occasions that a failure
Case 3:25-cv-03691-EMC Document 149 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 6

4
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
to pay could or would result in compensatory sanctions. See Docket No. 112 (minutes, filed on
6/18/2026) (warning about compensatory sanctions); Docket No. 117 (order, filed on 8/5/2026)
(same); Docket No. 120 (order, filed on 8/10/2026) (same).
On September 25, 2026, Court denied Mr. Firsov’s motion to reconsider civil contempt
sanctions. See Docket No. 136 (order). On October 7, 2026, the Court denied Mr. Firsov’s
motion to modify or stay its civil contempt sanctions. See Docket No. 143 (order). In denying the
motion to modify or stay, the Court considered Mr. Firsov’s claim that he was unable to pay
because he had recently lost his job. It noted that the amount of compensatory sanctions had yet to
be determined.
Now, SANA/SAS seeks $1,520 in attorneys’ fees as compensatory sanctions. Mr. Firsov
claims that he cannot pay the fees because he lost his job, either on September 24 or 25, 2026. See
Docket No. 139 (Mot. at 2); Docket No. 146 (Firsov Decl. ¶ 2). This was either the day after or
two days after the Court issued civil contempt sanctions.
Mr. Firsov has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he has lost his job. He has not
provided, e.g., a termination notice. Although he states in his declaration that he has lost his job,
see Docket No. 146 (Firsov Decl. ¶ 2) (testifying that, “[o]n September 25, 2026, I lost my
employment” and “I have been unemployed since that date and have no source of income”), Mr.
Firsov has a track record of making untruthful statements such that the Court does not credit his
declaration testimony by itself. For example:
• Mr. Firsov was sanctioned $722 in the first place because he failed to disclose that
Judge Freeman had vacated an order on which he was relying to support his
position that SANA had filed excess pages. See Docket No. 58 (Order at 58).
• In a motion to disqualify, Mr. Firsov falsely claimed that, “on the day of the
hearing for SANA/SAS’s motion for prefiling order, he went to the courtroom and,
even though the door to the courtroom was ‘closed’ (the hearing had not yet
started), he saw ‘multiple judges sit there [at the courtroom] table and discuss[]
him.’” Docket No. 128 (Order at 2). He also falsely claimed that the Court “got
advice from the other judges on how to ‘punish’ Mr. Firsov, and the [Court] said
Case 3:25-cv-03691-EMC Document 149 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 6

5
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
[it] would issue a prefiling order because [it] did not ‘like [Mr. Firsov] personally,’
and the other judges agreed.” Docket No. 128 (Order at 2).
• In his motion to stay or set off sanctions, Mr. Firsov falsely maintained that
“defense counsel owes him sanctions in Firsov v. Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT SA,
No. C-26-5195 JST, in the amount of $715.” Docket No. 135 (Order at 1).
• In his motion to modify or stay the civil contempt order, Mr. Firsov falsely asserted
that he lost his job because the Court “‘called to [his] work with complaints.’”
Docket No. 143 (Order at 1).
• In the pending motion, Mr. Firsov asserts, without any supporting evidence, that
defense counsel has been using AI.
For similar reasons, the Court does not credit Mr. Firsov’s declaration testimony by itself
that he has “no savings[,] . . . bank accounts, investment accounts, or other financial assets that
would enable [him] to pay” any sanctions. Docket No. 146 (Firsov Decl. ¶ 4).
To the extent Mr. Firsov challenges the amount of the fees requested ($1,520), his
arguments are not persuasive. Defense counsel’s hourly rate ($380) is reasonable and not
excessive. Mr. Firsov argues that the number of hours spent (4 hours) is excessive because
defense counsel was able to use AI. However, it is sheer speculation on his part that defense
counsel used AI, and, in any event, 4 hours is a reasonable amount of time given Mr. Firsov’s
continued intransigence in this suit. Finally, to the extent Mr. Firsov invokes Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37, that rule is not applicable. The Court has issued compensatory sanctions (as well as
coercive sanctions) based on its finding of civil contempt. Its issuance of the $722 monetary
sanctions was based on its inherent authority.
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the following sanctions have been or are now issued:
• $722 in monetary sanctions based on Mr. Firsov’s bad faith filing of a motion to
strike.
• $50 per day in coercive sanctions (beginning October 15, 2026) based on the
Court’s finding of civil contempt.
Case 3:25-cv-03691-EMC Document 149 Filed 10/15/26 Page 5 of 6

6
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
• $1,520 in compensatory sanctions based on the Court’s finding of civil contempt.
The $722 monetary sanctions and $1,520 compensatory sanctions are to be paid to
SANA/SAS. The coercive sanctions are to be paid to the Clerk of the Court. The coercive
sanctions shall automatically terminate once Mr. Firsov pays the $722 in monetary sanctions to
SANA/SAS. As the Court noted in its civil contempt order, SANA/SAS are now free to employ
any legal methods they see fit for collection of the $722 in monetary sanctions and the $1,520 in
compensatory sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2026
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03691-EMC Document 149 Filed 10/15/26 Page 6 of 6