really i don't recall the gentleman's name but we believe that they should agent residing in madison county was the registered agent or both these which was located in hamburg well counsel you talking designated the wrong entity what we did was we didn't set forth he and if he the entire name we said the palace and when in fact it was both these palace tavern fortuitous enough to have a reputation in madison county turned out that was not a fact but that being confused as to who is the proper registered agent is not the same as carrying the wrong i proper party or real party in interest is actually sued under the wrong name right that's misnomer correct how is this misnomer he did not sue the proper party or the real party in interest well we believe we yes i mean to believe we serve mr bush he was a service registered agent and he was served within a month and a half approximately the expiration of the statute of limitations right the we're talking about whether or not it served or she was intending civil procedure when the defendant entered a general appearance which they did in this case without challenging jurisdiction they waive any defects in service or any and he challenges to the jurisdiction o simultaneous motion challenging jurisdiction and interception real one they were preserved baddish but they chose not to instead what they actually did in this case was they sat back and said we're not going to enter our with the attorney for the defendant which they can test your representation on that they they can test the content oh the conversation they don't and passed the fact that they had knowledge of this and they a lot of the wall hitting with think of this section of this number versus the state comes out of places like cook county where it's a little bit trickier but when you're talking about can see that point but i don't think it changes the fact that the intent of the plaintiff was to sue the bar in hamburg and that's the salient inquiry when you're doing a misnomer inquiry of what was the intention of the plaintiffs and that the complaint was clear we were trying to sue in hamburg or the bar in hamburg where she was injured  whether or not it's a relation back issue was whether or not the original complaint was filed in the statute of limitations in this case it was the original complaint was found and federal court i'm sorry on february seventh two thousand and eighteenth of two thousand and ten so the second filing to madison county was the then the original statute of limitations so we were safe on that the second inquiry is if the defendant knew of the suit during on this defendant within the political satire to let limitations its notice and notice that in the one of the read the requirements of due diligence notice that  notice of the claim but in this case they were served with the complaint as a may may thirty first two thousand and twelve so that's approximately a month in that half after the expiration of the statute of limitations in april when a police came and so the question in my mind becomes under section or the second on of the six have found that a month and a half pounds to choose a lack of due diligence and i just don't think that that i mean there's cases out there for six months things along those lines but but clearly  i don't think you can want misnomer and relation back doctrine together is either a misnomer it's not if it's not a misnomer then you don't want look at six one six and whether or not the elements of the six one six inquiry have been mapped and so you're looking at diligence and you're not just looking at diligence from the time period you know a month and a half that it took to get i can't remember gentleman's last name but the rest of her yet mr booth served statute has expired which would have been according to the trial court expired on april eighteenth two thousand and twelve and then so you don't believe we consider the fact that you know the time statute that would not also go into a due diligence inquiry the last issue on that would have been but not the last of the failure to exercise due diligence so that there was no lon knew someone was injured and that there was a possible claim out there well court that case after case says that service is on an individual event therefore it's a coincidence they happen to be an officer you serve them in an individual capacity that is not service on the corporation lot he learned of the correct into team in the words of that entity from me after they served mr booth as an individual and i sent a letter that's in the record saying you know your lawsuit is against one of  you'll get every hit that has the word palace in it in the state of illinois and i don't want to file the cut too much because i don't want to say something i don't know for a fact but i'm fairly certain when you type in the you type in and where the registered offices but it's an i believe if i recall correctly that the secretary of state printouts regarding these two different entities are in the records and i believe that she was right by on the  now do there was in the black and white record there is talk about plaintiff's counsel going out new spec in the property he says well it's known as the palace well if you go inside the place i guarantee well one what out what i'm getting at is if there was a true inspection in this place i think that you know something beyond the business name now and once again you know there is this assertion and i'm i must assert that this is incorrect in the last this place was never known or held out of the movies i was having that was not an issue if you look through the record that was not an issue that was ever discussed at the trial of the trial level was all about whether or not this entity was help ever known as corporation it's a madison county an explicit detail in their complaint it wasn't just the name they went into the details of the corporation and its officers so it's disingenuous to say we just got the name wrong the registered agent it's right there in the record in the complaint they had explicit details about the wrong point they were wrong corp and it wasn't an abuse of discretion of the trial court to look at the multiple examples of the  related to that it's stacked there yes your honor thank you first off since the filing my brief the supreme court of illinois is obvious decision actually was coming out just as that time they finally give an official citation jurisdiction from that point forward you can still challenge passwords and that's what i did i think you have to look at the scenario and look at what's in the record i sent a letter detailing i would looked at my letter that i said counsel saying you've sued the wrong person you don't have proper service if you you know you ever fix this you know properly i think it's right in the letter you follow up or county you follow proper that serve them  course all your my parents well here's the dirty little secret they blew the statute they sued the wrong person so i sent that letter and as the trial court heard there was never any all conversation a great evil your letter does not directly summarize what we talked about what happen they go with talk or if i'll miss gnome they tell the trial court that i signed off on this and i'm just waiting there was specific that earth assertions made of things that i agreed to or that i was to get it out of madison county and also within the thirty day window for a motion to reconsider i file a motion to reconsider the eight that the misnomer was not correct or want them to reconsider vacate bad and two to reconsider  reconsider because i'm telling the court a few things that you know you've ruled on they're not you know it's my view that they're not correct and you're relying on incorrect information counsel what about the due diligence are you man and briefly what timeframe are we looking and waiting whether or not there was diligence and prejudice in time or just but two of like seven factors to consider in the trial court went through and weighed all the factors and came to the haven't he made individual service they told you got it wrong in a response he waited on we'll see if there are thirty days or just under over thirty days said our thought about what to do no communication and then they go and make all these representations and as i've got a number of questions will can't you do this can't you do that well we didn't do those things that's how is it with these fault that they didn't do their due diligence to find out who to sue once they made an error they created all this chaos and that's not  weighing all those other factors and saying if you look at the transcript the court was not happy that that they go in the i think he said c y a r something to that effect so is abuse of the discretion for the tr coming out the decision that there wasn't it's in this case and i'm i'm very short on time here in this case you know i think it's pretty clear from the case will assign a misnomer because there was to actually entities in the right the wrong one w look at six one six and that was in one of the in the courts findings on all these different now says are subject to abuse of distressed discretion standard and i don't believe that anything has been offered to show how they've abused their discretion other axiom related to a six one six or is that that is to be liberally construes the claims are resolved on the merits and not on procedural technicalities and that's what they're trying to escape in this a procedural technicality there was without question and attempt just soon i bar located in hamburg illinois they had actual notice of the complain and they have never claimed there was any prejudice based upon that i think they need to apply you know what that you're required to fight you know a standard of review and reverse maybe i'm not connecting with is whether and correct me if i'm wrong the court found that the statute expired on april eighteenth or also found that there was not a misnomer and therefore it didn't relate back to the filing in march and they're also found that six one six did not apply and therefore the so six one six the permeation is the dover i believe it is there is no case for