1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SERGEY FIRSOV, Case No. 5:25-cv-03784-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. DISQUALIFICATION

10 UNITED AIRLINES, INC, et al., [Re: ECF No. 94] 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Sergey Firsov’s motion to disqualify the undersigned. 14 ECF No. 94 (“Mot.”). The matter is suitable for adjudication without a hearing, and no response 15 by Defendants is required. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The motion is DENIED. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 On December 1, 2025, the Court denied Mr. Firsov’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions. ECF 18 No. 89. The Court also determined that sanctions against Mr. Firsov were necessary to deter his 19 pattern of bad-faith, vexatious conduct in these proceedings, ordering Defendants to file by 20 December 8, 2025, a brief and declaration addressing the reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees 21 incurred in opposing the motion for sanctions. Id. at 3. In its order, the Court provided that 22 Mr. Firsov would have seven days after the date of Defendants’ brief and declaration to file a 23 response to show why sanctions should not be issued. Id. Defendants filed the brief and 24 declaration pursuant to the order on December 5, 2025. ECF No. 90. Rather than filing a 25 response, Mr. Firsov filed a motion for reconsideration, his fifth such motion in these proceedings. 26 ECF No. 93. Mr. Firsov also moved to disqualify the undersigned. Mot. at 1. 27 II. LEGAL STANDARD 1 any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

(a). 2 A judge “shall also disqualify [her]self . . . [w]here [she] has a personal bias or prejudice 3 concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the 4 proceeding.”

§ 455(b). This standard is “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all 5 the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United 6 States v. Holland,

(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,

(9th Cir. 2005)). 8 “[T]he simple filing of an affidavit does not automatically disqualify a judge.” Malberg 9 v. Cashen, No. 22-cv-01788-BLF,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2022) (quoting 10 United States v. Bray,

(10th Cir. 1976)). If the judge finds the affidavit to be 11 legally insufficient, the judge may deny the motion for recusal. Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 12

(9th Cir. 1988) (“Only after the legal sufficiency of the affidavit is 13 determined does it become the duty of the judge to ‘proceed no further’ in the case.”); see also 14 Davis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,

(8th Cir. 1984) (noting that, 15 “[u]nder the statutory standard for judicial disqualification, judges are charged with an affirmative 16 duty to probe the legal sufficiency of petitioner’s affidavit of prejudice and not to disqualify 17 themselves unnecessarily”). [T]he party seeking disqualification bears a substantial burden to 18 show that the judge is biased.” Torres v. Chrysler Fin. Co., No. 07-cv-00915-JW,

3165665, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2007). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 Mr. Firsov argues that disqualification is appropriate because the Court “protected opposite 22 attorneys[] because in the past she was an attorney” and “admonished Plaintiff.” Mot. at 3. 23 Having considered Mr. Firsov’s arguments, the Court finds that he has not demonstrated that 24 disqualification is warranted under section 455. The Court finds that Mr. Firsov’s motion is based 25 on his disagreement with the Court’s order denying his request for sanctions, but “judicial rulings 26 alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 27

(1994); see also Holland,

(“[T]he judge’s conduct during the 1 recusal....”). 2 || IV. ORDER 3 Because Mr. Firsov has failed to meet his burden to show that the undersigned is biased or 4 || prejudiced, or that her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, the Court DENIES 5 Mr. Firsov’s motion for disqualification. 6 Dated: December 11, 2025 ’ BETH LABSON FREEMAN 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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