Maynard v. ELGA Credit Union
- Kang
- 3:25-cv-05211
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Maynard v. ELGA Credit Union, Judge Kang ordered Maynard to show cause over service and vacated the case-management conference.
Joshua Maynard, the self-represented plaintiff, must address the lack of service; Elga Credit Union had not appeared.
What happened
In Maynard v. ELGA Credit Union, Joshua Maynard filed a complaint against Elga Credit Union on June 20, 2025, and paid the filing fee. The opinion states that Elga Credit Union had not appeared and that Maynard had not filed proof showing proper service.
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after filing. More than 90 days had passed, and the docket did not show that Elga Credit Union had been served. The court stated that Maynard’s status as a self-represented litigant did not by itself establish a valid reason for the delay.
Judge Peter H. Kang ordered Maynard to respond in writing by October 27, 2025, and explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve the defendant. Maynard could respond by filing adequate proof of service. The court vacated the October 1, 2025, initial case-management conference but did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Maynard v. ELGA Credit Union · No. 3:25-cv-05211
- Kang
- Sept. 26, 2025
Background
Joshua Maynard filed the complaint against Elga Credit Union on June 20, 2025, paid the required filing fee, and proceeded without a lawyer. Elga Credit Union had not appeared, and Maynard had not filed proof of service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l).
Service deadline
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires a defendant to be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed. If service is not completed, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice or order service by a specified deadline. If the plaintiff shows good cause—a legally sufficient reason—for the failure, the court must extend the service period. The court stated that a party’s self-represented status does not itself establish good cause and that self-represented litigants must follow the same procedural rules as other litigants.
More than 90 days had passed since Maynard filed the complaint, and the docket contained no indication that Elga Credit Union had been properly served. The court stated that this failure provided grounds for dismissal if Maynard could not justify it.
Order
The court ordered Maynard to show cause in writing by October 27, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve Elga Credit Union within Rule 4(m)’s deadline. Maynard could respond by filing adequate proof of service under Rule 4. The court warned that failing to respond timely or show good cause would result in a Report and Recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve and failure to prosecute. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
Because of the case’s procedural posture, the court vacated the initial case-management conference set for October 1, 2025. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Maynard at his address of record.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.