1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SERGEY FIRSOV, et al., Case No. 25-cv-04058-LJC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING FIRSOV’S IFP APPLICATION AND GRANTING 9 v. POMOGAIBO’S IFP APPLICATION

10 AIR CANADA, INC., ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FIRSOV’S CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE 11 Defendant. DISMISSED Re: Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, 10 12

13 Both Plaintiffs in this case are proceeding without counsel and have applied to proceed in 14 forma pauperis (IFP). On August 8, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why 15 Plaintiffs’ IFP applications should not be denied. That Order addressed Plaintiff Sergey Firsov, 16 who reported gross income of $124,800 per year, as follows:

17 Courts are allowed to take into account plaintiffs’ choices in how they spend money when considering applications to proceed in forma 18 pauperis. Olivares v. Marshall,

, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming imposition of a partial filing fee that an imprisoned 19 plaintiff could have paid with the funds that he typically spent at the prison commissary). Firsov’s reported gross income suggests that he 20 could likely afford the costs of the filing fee and service of process for this case by adjusting his discretionary suspending, without 21 foregoing “the necessities of life.” See Escobedo [v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015)]. Many judges in this district have 22 reached that conclusion in denying Firsov’s IFP applications in other recent cases, including cases where Firsov provided more detailed 23 financial records for review than he has here, with some judges noting Firsov’s pattern of bringing cases based on his own frequent 24 international travel. E.g., Firsov v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. No. 25-cv- 02841 NC, ECF No. 15 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2025 (denying 25 reconsideration of denial of IFP); L.F. ex rel. Firsov v. Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley, No. 25-cv-03265-SVK, ECF No. 16 at 26 6–7,

, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2025) (identifying several other cases based on Firsov’s air travel where his IFP 27 applications were denied). In an abundance of caution, however, the Court will allow Firsov an 1 opportunity to argue that a different outcome is warranted here. Firsov is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why his application to proceed in 2 forma pauperis should not be denied, by filing a response to this Order no later than August 29, 2025. Any such response must identify 3 Firsov’s financial commitments that stem from legal obligations (e.g., child support orders) as opposed to discretionary spending, and must 4 include documentary evidence of any such obligations. In the alternative, Firsov may withdraw his application and pay the filing 5 fee by the same deadline. 6 ECF No. 9 at 2–3 (emphasis added). 7 On August 11, 2025, Firsov filed a one-paragraph response stating that he funds his 8 expenses largely through debt, that a state court has granted him a fee waiver in an eviction case, 9 and that if his IFP application is denied, he “will blame federal court on a state trial in eviction 10 case that they forced to pay Federal court instead to pay rent and living expenses.” ECF No. 10-1 11 at 2 (sic). Firsov did not comply with this Court’s previous Order to identify expenses that stem 12 from legal obligations, such as child support, lease, or mortgage obligations, and to provide 13 documentary evidence of such obligations, and there is no indication that he intends to do so. The 14 Court therefore concludes that Firsov could afford to pay the filing fee and costs of service by 15 adjusting his discretionary spending, and DENIES Firsov’s IFP application (ECF No. 4). Firsov is 16 ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to pay the 17 filing fee. Firsov must either pay the filing fee or file a response to this Order arguing why 18 dismissal is not appropriate no later than September 18, 2025. 19 The Court directed Plaintiff Kateryna Pomogaibo, who reported household income of 20 around $60,000 but basic expenses exceeding that value, to explain her statements that she owned 21 a home worth $50,000 and that she owes rent in the amount of $4,800 per month notwithstanding 22 her homeownership. ECF No. 9 at 4. Pomogaibo states in her response that she owns a home in 23 Ukraine, which she was forced to abandon due to the war there, and that she rents a three-bedroom 24 apartment in Mountain View where she lives with her son, daughter, mother, and brother, and that 25 another daughter will be joining them from Ukraine. ECF No. 10 at 1. Pomogaibo’s monthly 26 rent, though substantial, is reasonable in light of the local housing market and the number of 27 family members living with her. Sufficient cause having been shown, Pomogaibo’s IFP 1 When a district court grants a plaintiff IFP status, the court then screens the sufficiency of 2 the plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to 3 state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who 4 is immune from such relief.”

(e)(2)(B). Here, though, the need for such 5 screening of Pomogaibo’s claims may become moot if Firsov pays the filing fee. See Laine v. 6 Superior Ct., No. 18-cv-04390-JCS,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2018) (“[O]nly 7 one filing fee needs to be paid per case . . . .” (citation omitted)). The Court will therefore wait to 8 conduct such screening unless and until Firsov fails to pay the filing fee by the September 18, 9 2025 deadline. 10 As stated in the Order to Show Cause, “all plaintiffs in a given case [must] qualify to 11 proceed in forma pauperis before the filing fee will be waived,” but “the Court recognizes that 12 Plaintiffs are divorced, and that Pomogaibo likely cannot compel Firsov to pay the filing fee for 13 their joint complaint if he is not willing to do so.” ECF No. 9 at 3–4. If Firsov does not pay the 14 filing fee by September 18, 2025, or show cause why some other course of action is warranted, the 15 undersigned will screen the sufficiency of Pomogaibo’s claims as discussed above, and then 16 reassign the case to a district judge with a report and recommendation that Firsov’s claims be 17 dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. In such a scenario, the district judge may adopt or 18 decline the undersigned’s recommendation and may affirm or reverse the denial of IFP status for 19 Firsov. 20 In addition to the September 18, 2025 deadline for Firsov to pay the filing fee, the 21 following deadlines shall also apply. The fourteen-day deadline under Rule 72(a) of the Federal 22 Rules of Civil Procedure for Firsov to challenge this Order denying his IFP application is hereby 23 STAYED. The stay will be lifted, and the fourteen-day deadline will begin to run if and when the 24 undersigned issues a report and recommendation for dismissal. In the event that the undersigned 25 issues a report and recommendation for dismissal, Firsov will be entitled to serve and file specific 26 objections to the proposed findings and recommendation pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal 27 Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that these objections challenge the undersigned’s reasons 1 for denying his IFP application, such objections shall also constitute his challenge under Rule 2 || 72(a). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: August 18, 2025 5 6 Ys, | dari — ‘A J. CISNEROS 7 ited States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

© 15 16

it

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28