A California federal judge has declared a passenger a "vexatious litigant" after he filed 27 lawsuits against international airlines in less than two years. Sergey Firsov, a frequent flyer, sued SAS Scandinavian Airlines over an incident where flight attendants ran out of chicken meals on a San Francisco to Copenhagen flight and served him a vegetarian entree instead.

Firsov claimed the substitution caused him emotional distress and damaged his health. The lawsuit represents one of dozens he has filed against carriers including major international operators over similar meal service complaints and other minor travel grievances.

The vexatious litigant designation carries serious legal consequences. It restricts Firsov's ability to file future lawsuits without court permission, a move designed to prevent frivolous litigation that clogs the judicial system. Federal judges impose this label on individuals who repeatedly file baseless claims or abuse the legal process.

This case highlights a growing problem in aviation litigation. While legitimate passenger complaints deserve attention, serial litigants weaponize the courts to extract settlements from airlines rather than resolve genuine disputes. Airlines settle nuisance claims sometimes because legal defense costs exceed settlement amounts, creating incentives for repeat filers.

For most travelers, meal service disputes resolve through customer service channels, not courtrooms. Airlines typically offer compensation for meal quality issues through customer relations departments. SAS, like most carriers, allows passengers to pre-select meals during booking or request alternatives if options run out.

The ruling sends a message: courts will not tolerate abuse of the legal system over standard airline operations. Firsov's repeated filings over meal service mistakes demonstrate how trivial complaints become litigation weapons when pursued obsessively.

Passengers with legitimate concerns should document issues, contact airline customer service directly, and pursue reasonable compensation claims. The courts exist for genuine disputes, not endless litigation cycles triggered by