as i'm sure the panel knows the first issue is will america have a motive as a corporation and al hindi those two defendants are in the first part of our argument hindi the reason that my clients are in this mess is because of the there was an issue with is inability to represent the defendants and was unable to provide the kind of representation that resulted in compliance with the discovery  question of whether or not there were reasonable defenses to support the two fourteen on petition in particular the the fault was as a result of a failure of our client to have any knowledge that the defense judgment head even then enter quinn who was the previous attorney basically abandoned the case as a result of his abandonment the default judgment was entered immediately upon norms of this default as soon as within thirty days of the knowledge of the defenses are the basic cases is that this towing company which is the defendant's own were charged the beneficiaries of allstate insurance the question is now whether they overcharge whether or not they were or were charging illegally because they are allowed to tragic the market rate except for specific totally fees which are regulated by the state the fees that are issue were not the cherry trees they were the cleanup feeds the storage fees the other fees that were regulated so the therese situation is it is very different there is no evidence in the record that there was ever a summons issued against tariq individually that there was ever a summons subjected to prove push one jurisdiction in this case is that he somehow implied authorized mr cool to represent him in an individual capacity in this case and there is nothing in the record to indicate that and the failure to but there's no question that cool filed pleadings in the name of terry but he did not have authority to do so there's nothing in the record to ever suggest that my client gave him a if you were call the original case did not name the individual there was an amended complaint that added him is an individual party there's no evidence on the record to suggest that mr tyreke was ever to work after the amendment agent and an officer of the corporation there is no document that anyone can point to in this case that was signed by treasury that would indicate that he individually submitted to the jurisdiction of the score there's nothing but the  becomes aware or has knowledge of the fact that something has occurred in his individual capacity he put the most and the support we have to david indicates that soon as he found out that there was a default which happened to be seven months later as soon as he found out that there was to be filed against him individually he hired a council of the fortune along and started this procedure it would be against the very principles of great to suggest that a wreak has to have appeared at a pretrial all kinds of information which we provided one by one each by each to indicate there's nothing that can be put into the record with all due respect and  i think the starting point is to fourteen a one petition and that's what's being appealed from in this case and i think there's no question with respect to what the issues are with respect to two fourteen zero one petition one is they have to show the existence of america  defense have to show due diligence in presenting the defense and then they also have to show do diligence in presenting the two fourteen zero one petition and under the circumstances if you look at what the petition was filed with the trial court there's only one affidavit filed with the trial court and that's the affidavit of hindi so there's no affidavit from road america and there's no affidavit from truckle and in a requirement of two fourteen zero one in fact the plain language statute says it must have an affidavit or other supporting documentation that is outside of the record of the trial court and in this case and the question the justice never last is particularly appropriate what kept the petitioners from asserting these facts of a meritorious defense in their petition as well as the facts with regard to whether or not they act they exercise due diligence in defending the case previously and so if you look at the affidavit and the only affidavit that submitted with respect to the two fourteen zero one petition there's no allegations there's no assertions there's no testimony that there are meritorious defenses of the case it's just regard to the fourteen zero one petition then at present in either circumstance so it doesn't matter so i think under those circumstances on that point alone we know that they have met the burden in addition the due diligence requirement of the affidavits are present either there's again no affidavit from other america there's no affidavit from direct al hindi and the affidavit again from azzam how hindi doesn't mention his efforts prior to learning of the judgment it doesn't mention anything at all there's a date where general appearance is made on behalf of azzam hunty and wrote america and there's nothing to suggest about what happened during the period of time on the behalf of all hindi or wrote america from the date of the general parents until the da of the judgment and then from the period of time from the date of the judgment until the date they learned of the judgment there's simply devoid of any facts and so again with respect to the element of due diligence within the defense of the case below there are no facts and the the petition on its face and for those reasons alone the petition was properly tonight and finally the question about pursuing the to do does is that the two fourteen zero one petition itself again there's no affidavit from with respect to the issue of the appearance on behalf of mr cool on behalf of terracotta handy it's important to note that i think everyone's not everyone i should say and that's exactly what happened here and their argument is there are no in fact just several there is a specific pleading that was filed in fact on april thirtieth of two thousand eight the amended complaint was filed and the answer was filed on behalf of road america within the body of that complaint and in the caption of that complaint track al hindi is named as an individual defendant and an officer of the corporation as well track al hindi on april thirtieth of two thousand and eight verifies that complaint and within the body of that complaint he's got knowledge that he has named as an individual  had specific knowledge because he verified the answer to the amended complaint on april thirtieth of two thousand and eight and under those circumstances and based upon the circumstances in totality of the entire handling of the case by mr cool and particularly when one considers the defenses that are certain because we have now two officers being represented by the attorney when one officer hadn't been named before that officers added and now the defenses  added with respect to the motion to dismiss and this is he those defenses are you are an officer of a corporation you cannot be helped liable for their actions under those circumstances and the other facts that were added as part of the record meeting mr cool head ultimately the filing of the motion to dismiss which i might add the motion to dismiss was granted in another minute complaint was ultimately filed and that i'm in a complaint was the basis for the judgment so under the circumstances the two fourteen individual capacity in that lawsuit it's not enough to confer personal jurisdiction on him again under great even if the lawyer files documents with defendant's name and if he's not authorized to do it it's not enough to submit to jurisdiction in this particular case we do not have nor can the defendants point to any document where there's either a general parents or there is an authorization to his lawyer to represent him in individual president of the corporation there he's in a position where he's required to represent the corporation as an officer of the corporation in a legal document so he does sign any signs that absolute correct as an officer of the signing o sign we cited numerous cases in the appeal that indicate that an officer of the corporation should be able to sign his capacity as an officer without fear that that sig ensuring representation as an officer somehow confers individual lose the corporate protection the corporate veil that that individuals enjoy the very purpose of setting up corporations is to create a wall against individual run where one of the reasons the form is ok yes thank the verify the answers of the second complaint to think that your honor has referred to was done it is individual was done in his corporate capacity as an office of defense counsel he is right in that this panel should look at the totality of the actions by t determining whether or not he submitted to his individual jurisdiction and there's nothing to suggest anywhere that he did actually give that authorization again we cited the cases if you look at the the beginning of the lawsuit and this supplied also in determining statue of limitations if a lawsuit is filed and no summons is placed with the chef and no summons are served on the defendant the argument can be made even that case in that situation the statue of limitations have not been met where you ha case where a case has just been filed by the date but no service of summons has been placed similar here there's no it's not that there was a summons not served it wasn't an issue of the power set aside the phantom permitted defended to have his day in clerk is based upon substantial principle of right and wrong is and has to be exercised for the prevention of injury and for some justice the two filipino imposition petition is to twiddle to preserve the fairness to allow both parties to have their