complaint on the defendant bank or whatever it was you know which was about march twenty first of two thousand and two or whatever i said i understand the practice in the district court they don't you're not you  my review of the case law so let's just here's what concerns me and maybe it's not a real serious concern i don't know the motions filed i mean if you look at the motion to dismiss it's not supported by declaration from the person who had allegedly received the document stating that that person in fact did not receive this complaint i believe that the problem was  to david of service and it's not clear to me but apparently they think that that's sufficient i don't think it's that they didn't arrange to have the process server filed an affidavit of service i don't think that for david  status conference that but i'm bothered by the fact that there's a motion filed and you're confident that you can defeat it because you know that the affidavit of service has been filed but don't you have an obligation under the very common in my experience is that one a party files a motion if there is no response to a good district court may conclude from the failure to respond that the party either acquiesces in the entry sally case that you have to weigh the factors and there was no way you know the factors at all and besides that my opposition was given a certain amount of time to respond when most of  to be political that bush v gore comes to mind about the lack of the rule of law one point on i'm going through it all never filed the response to the motion to dismiss and a timely manner i think the court can see that up to was given to the pro se plaintiffs themselves by a letter march eighteenth whatever reason maybe judge silver which is busy with other matters and didn't pay much attention to this case but for six months it basically sat on her docket with nothing happening that's correct you're absolutely nothing that's correct to a new district court judge and what  there is still a pending motion to dismiss the plaintiffs they acknowledge in their unilateral status report filed the day after mr bemis handed a copy of the motion to dismiss their acknowledgment that they understand that a motion to dismiss is pending right they still don't act on it or they were told though that if you don't file a response your motion is going to be does the court's going to the course i'm going to just grant the motion the court's going to dismiss the case and to rule forty eight there is no indication that the court ever i have no other comments unless you have questions from thank you not that he doesn't state where in the record the court trial court where the henderson factors i thought the best he could do was the point as to the language of the court's dismissal order and ask us to infer from the recitation of  even anything any validity to the other side motions my main thing here as far as a proper stay litigant my clients are high school educated hispanics and we're trying to do this this case i got in over there had they sent me a little bit of latitude when in fact transitions from from a pro se litigant to to an attorney there are natural things that have to take pl