Firsov, minor, by & through parent Sergey Firsov v. Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LEONID FIRSOV, MINOR, BY & Case No. 25-cv-03265-SVK THROUGH PARENT SERGEY FIRSOV, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE-SETTING FEE DEADLINE; 9 DENYING ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS; v. DENYING SEALING OF IFP 10 APPLICATION CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF 11 SILICON VALLEY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 20

12 Defendants.

13 Minor plaintiff L.F. initiated this action through his parent Sergey Firsov1 against the 14 Church of Scientology of Silicon Valley and the Church of Scientology Mission of Silicon Valley. 15 Dkt. 1. This Court previously denied Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 16 and ordered Plaintiff to pay a filing fee. Dkt. 16. The fee deadline was thereafter stayed pending 17 Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Consent, (see Dkts. 17, 19), which was denied by the Honorable 18 Beth L. Freeman on July 7, 2025, (Dkt. 22). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion seeking to 19 compel issuance of the summons and sealing of Plaintiff’s. Dkt. 20 (the “Motion”). Having considered Plaintiff’s submission and the relevant law, the Court DENIES the Motion and resets 20 the fee deadline as set forth below. 21 22 I. MOTION TO COMPEL ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS On June 6, 2025, this Court denied with prejudice Plaintiff’s renewed IFP applications. 23 Accordingly, no summons has been issued in this case. Plaintiff argues that, “from day ONE,” the 24 Court has been in violation of its duty to issue the summons. Dkt. 20 at 2. Plaintiff’s only support 25 for this argument is that a summons was issued on June 4, 2025 in one of Plaintiff’s parent’s 26 27 1 cases, Firsov v. Western Union (No. 25-cv-04727), without payment. Id. at 2. 2 Plaintiff’s argument is mistaken: “It is the filing of the complaint that triggers Plaintiff’s 3 ability to present a summons to the clerk for signature and seal.” Firsov v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 4 No. 25-cv-03387-RFL (TSH), Dkt. 22 at 2 (quoting Gates-Middleton v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., 5 2022 WL 479497, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 12, 2022) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b)), report and 6 recommendation adopted at Dkt. 26. A summons may be issued in error, and such errors may be 7 corrected. See, e.g., Firsov v. Moneygram Payment Sys., Inc., No. 25-cv-4726-SVK, Dkts. 6, 8 8 (summons issued in error and corrected to a proposed summons). The undersigned does not 9 control the dockets of her distinguished colleagues. Nonetheless, because Plaintiff has not paid 10 the filing fee and his IFP application was not granted, he is “not entitled to have summons issued.” 11 Firsov v. JetBlue Airways., No. 25-cv-03387-RFL (TSH), Dkt. 22 at 2 (quoting Gates-Middleton, 12 2022 WL 479497, at *3); see also Dkt. 22 in this Action (Judge Freeman explaining that “because 13 Plaintiff’s IFP application has been denied, he is not entitled to issuance of the summons unless 14 and until he pays the filing fee.”). 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for issuance of a summons at this time is DENIED. 16 II. MOTION TO SEAL PLAINTIFF’S IFP APPLICATIONS 17 Plaintiff also moves to seal his IFP applications. Dkt. 20. The Court previously declined 18 to seal Plaintiff’s IFP applications, noting that Plaintiff had not filed a motion to have them sealed. 19 Dkt. 16 at 5. However, recognizing its due to construe Plaintiff’s filings liberally, the Court also 20 addressed the merits of Plaintiff’s sealing request in the alternative. Id. at 5-6. The Court 21 reiterates that “sealing motions must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material. 22 … Merely stating that a party designated material as confidential is insufficient by itself to seal a 23 document.” Id. (quoting Comet Techs. USA, Inc. v. XP Power, LLC, No. 20-cv-06408-NC, 2022 24 WL 2442808, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2022)). Moreover, courts may deny requests to seal IFP 25 applications in their entirety where the only justification proffered for sealing is that “the motion 26 contains personal information.” Raiser v. City of Upland, No. 11-cv-00465-RGK (RZ), 2014 WL 27 12696753, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (“[V]irtually every lawsuit and IFP application contain ] motion to seal is DENIED. 2 || II. CONCLUSION AND FEE DEADLINE 3 Judge Freeman returned this case to the undersigned for further proceedings on July 7, 4 ||} 2025. Because this Court previously stayed the fee deadline, the Court now re-sets the deadline. 5 || Plaintiff must pay the fee by July 14, 2025. Ifhe fails to do so, the Court will issue an order that 6 || this case be reassigned to a District Judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed 7 || without prejudice. 8 9 SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: July 8, 2025 1] 22 Secson yal 5 SUSAN VAN KEULEN 13 United States Magistrate Judge

(44

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