Passenger Claimed Emotional Distress After Airline Ran Out of Chicken Entrees. He Has Now Been Declared a ‘Vexatious Litigant’

A serial litigator who has filed lawsuits against a slew of international airlines 27 times in less than two years has been declared a ‘vexatious litigant’ by a U.S. District Judge in Northern California. The ruling followed a lawsuit in which the passenger claimed he suffered emotional distress after flight attendants on an SAS Scandinavian Airlines flight from San Francisco to Copenhagen ran out of chicken entrees during the main meal service and, instead, served him a vegetarian meal.

Frequent flyer Sergey Firsov claimed in his lawsuit that his health was “damaged” from being served the vegetarian meal because “he is a man and required to eat meat every day.” He also complained that the air conditioning system on another flight wasn’t working properly and was making the air “too dry,” necessitating the need for him to drink water every 15 minutes.

Firsov lost the case against SAS earlier this year when the airline successfully convinced the court to dismiss the proceedings on the grounds that he had failed to plead a physical injury, which was required for a claim under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention.

"The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.."

But SAS wasn’t satisfied with simply having the case dismissed and filed a motion in court, demanding that Firsov be labelled a ‘vexatious litigant’ – essentially, someone who has repeatedly abused the court system by filing frivolous, harassing, meritless lawsuits.

Between March 2025 and June 2026, Firsov filed 30 lawsuits in the district court for Northern California, and all but three of those cases included an airline as one of the defendants.

Around two-thirds of those lawsuits have already been dismissed for a variety of reasons, including failing to state a claim under the Montreal Convention and failure to pay the filing fee.

In this case, and in many others, Firsov had requested so-called IFP status, which would exempt him from paying the filing fee, but in every case, this was denied. When Firsov lost the case against SAS, the airline moved to recover these costs and have him marked as a ‘vexatious litigant.’

U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen has now released an order in SAS’s favor, saying: “In the instant case, the Court finds that there is a sufficient basis and need to declare Mr. Firsov a vexatious litigant, particularly because his conduct has been harassing. That is, his means of litigating has been abusive.”

“There is no indication that Mr. Firsov is making decisions based on the particulars of any case but rather is taking a scorched earth approach,” Judge Chen added.

“Mr. Firsov has caused needless expense to the airlines he has sued and imposed an unnecessary burden on the undersigned and other judges in this District.”

While Judge Chen noted that Firsov may have been treated poorly by the airlines he sued, the alleged misconduct was relatively minor, and his claims of emotional distress “ring hollow.”

“The Montreal Convention does not even allow for pure emotional distress, requiring that there be physical injury in the first instance. Furthermore, Mr. Firsov’s attempt to get the entire cost of his international tickets reimbursed is highly questionable given that the airlines (for the most part) did provide him with travel,” the order continued.

SAS had wanted the court to impose a far-reaching pre-filing requirement on Firsov, meaning that he would have been required to explain why he wanted to file a lawsuit before actually being allowed to do so.

Judge Chen said that the breadth of the pre-filing requirement requested by SAS exceeded the “vice encountered,” but did impose a pre-filing requirement for any lawsuits with an airline name as a defendant.

“Mr. Firsov is forewarned that should he continue to litigate as he has done, he risks being sanctioned with a broader prefiling order,” the order added.

“The Clerk of this Court shall not file or accept any further complaints or other case-initiating documents filed by or on behalf of Mr. Firsov alleging any claims against an airline unless and until that complaint or other filing has first been reviewed by the General Duty Judge of this Court and approved for filing, or if Mr. Firsov is represented by a licensed attorney admitted to practice in this Court.”

Some of the complaints that Firsov filed included:

• A lawsuit against Austrian Airlines after flight attendants allegedly refused to let him enter the airplane bathroom with a bag containing his dogs. He also claimed that his dogs couldn’t drink water during the flight because the space underneath the seat was too small.
• He sued Turkish Airlines after the carrier required him to undergo facial recognition in order to board the flight.
• A lawsuit against Qatar Airways after the Doha-based carrier changed his flight, resulting in him arriving at his destination later than planned.
• He also sued German flag carrier Lufthansa after flight attendants banned him from petting his cat during a flight.

According to another complaint filed against SAS, the airline has added Firsoz to its ‘no-fly list.’