reconsideration of its ruling granting the united states government's motion to dismiss on the grounds of insufficiency of process the process in question was upon the united states government under rule for  considered non conforming nikos current cure is passed because they have no standing regard to the united states in their letter to the plaintiff that june two thousand and two and  grief they clearly state that although the united states must be served the department of navy is responsible for the response to the complaint and the part of the navy is the entity that received the complaint in the summons and thirty days who affirmed on many occasions that indeed the appropriate people were served and i relied upon her and unfortunately perhaps they were not served we are not quite sure of that but indeed the  rule should be construed fairly liberally especially in a situation where the consequences of an adverse ruling against the point of are so heavy and the prejudice to the court then we can't really name the navy and state court in my opinion is not the appropriate venue for this particular issue primarily because it is the fuel army we're dealing with a major major problem and that being  environmental pollution causing childhood leukemia in the country in the world and this is a this was the purpose for this that alleging that can be brought in federal court if was wrong or right to dismiss you as prepared you know when he said that about the graphic effects whatever they are they are over and there's no remedy for them maybe you would have been farther ahead by now but there's no way t the rule is to be interpreted rather liberally on a case by case basis i think so if it is indeed an abuse of discretion issue here because the judge has told discretion as to whether or not to dismiss the defendant filed a motion to dismiss in response a motion to dismiss the complaint and summons were attached as as exhibits so at that point the defendant was noticed and the from the from mr vane regarding how service must be made at that point i depended upon my secretary to to make service appropriate and either she misled me or somebody else something happened in service had not been made however it was cured within a month and service had was made and the judge decided to use this particular issue to pioneer analysis of the gravity of the of the adverse ruling against the party is so great as opposed to the prejudiced to the moving party which is so small that the judge abused his discretion become increasingly specific and clear over the years plaintiff must serve both united states and the attorney general by very specific means this rules meant to ensure that the department of justice can monitor and control the thousands of civil cases that are file but in fact the receipts that were offered to the district court didn't have any sing in church only that the receipts had been or that the service had been received it didn't show how the service had been done and in fact when you put the numbers in the united states postal services tracking system there's no record indicating that this was ever done so that led the district court to question whether in fact the complaint in some attend never been sent to the united states at all as plaintiff represented in response to the motion to dismiss another factor that i would like to address is the claim president that the plaintiff's attorney has made reference to and with respect to that i'd like to say two things first of all as soon as the complaint was dismissed plaintiff's attorney father another class action complaint in the district of nevada with a new named plaintiff and that's the class action that has been going forward although he has subsequently withdrawn a class action allegations but in addition to that i think more importantly is that this particular plan of himself as an action in state court ongoing right now against all of the private defendants making substantially the same allegations that were made in federal district court now no prejudice at all to the federal court actually being dismissed there's ongoing actions involving this particular plaintiff in state court no class action going anywhere that's right you're out of the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew this class action allegations because the district court has set up a very specific procedure that the plaintiff's attorney in the plaintiff had to follow to get the class certified and when that time was about ready to come up plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the class action allegations so there is not a class action going on in federal court but there is as i understand a class action going on in state court right  now briefly i would like to make reference to the plainest argument that the court should reopen the judgment and the argument there is that the plaintiff's attorney never to the secretary and what you did know the plaintiff's attorney our office never filed a sworn affidavit stating exactly why the service wasn't made they kept on attempting to show that service had been made and the district court kept finding that the burden had not been met so there was no reason ever given as to why a service was not made in fact i think this is the first time it's been argued articulated here in this court is why service wasn't made  to thank you may please a court don latin on behalf of the city of fallon the city would incorporate the arguments made by the department of justice this is a service of process case there are rules regarding that service the process of the case was surprisingly the city's argument in this case is that we should not have to fight a multiplicity of lawsuits there are several lawsuits that are pending including the one that's been alluded to in federal court that has the same issue and there has been as there is no prejudice to the parties here because the same issue is going forward in another court and so the city believes that this was properly just missed there was no abuse of discretion there was no reason shown why process wasn't made properly and we believe that the dismissal should be sustained and we would ask this court to do so and that you have no questions that