wasn't actually in the district court record that was raised for the st time on appeal by stevenson what we have in the record is the basic business license at page fifty eight dollars of the appendix which lists stephenson herself as the registered agent and that license was active at the the basic business license is the one that stevenson attached to her free there's nothing authentic eating it except for the fact that believe that she swore that that was accurate or anything like that or earlier one would cease to be attached to the complete with a mass of other papers that's correct yes it's like it was attached to the complaint there's nothing authenticating it but that's the only one that's actually in the record and for purposes of construing factual allegations at this stage i think what we recommend to the court is  personal jurisdiction context the plaintiff's allegations as true and you take the factual evidence for a submissions that they make as true and ask whether there's a prima facia case and here we don't think that there was obviously adequate service correct and rule for and to to kind of get to that point rule for em creates a mandatory extension scheme so when there's a good call from the district court has no discretion has to get an extension and that rule in our view when service hasn't been made within ninety days and now we're talking about citizen hasn't been made with one hundred and fifty days just to correct you but so i guess so we have we have cases i can point you to i we have three cases from district court view had abused its discretion in this case however after the patani created st extension didn't the district court say no further extension yes you're right how should we think about that what does that do during now since it would actually say that that cuts in favor of an extension because i would qualify that is as a potential legal error early some misunderstanding of the scope of the district court's discretion because at that time that was a proactive or preemptive declaration by the district court and at that time there were no facts  at that point about whether or short of a diligent efforts to try to affect service to sort of proactively say no further extensions will be granted i think runs counter to rule for ems mandatory extensions because the court at the courtroom said was i will grant an extension of good causes the st time to to our knowledge that this court hasn't come to the question of whether a nd because extension is mandatory and just a quibble with the textual reading a little bit i think that the best reading of the text or at least the text would be ambiguous as to whether a mandatory extension would be required i take the point that it just references the ninety days but if putting the two things together the text requires a district court to grant a good cause extension when good causes show and doesn't limit the number anywhere of how many extensions is  point that the district court simply didn't look at the good columns and analysis here that's certainly part of the point if you can can we look at the record is it the has the existing decided that's harmless here that that there's nothing in the record to show good cause  disregard the district court was responding to the filing to be sure but the filing talked at great length about restarts diligent efforts and stevenson's intentional evasion of service and she said it was wrong on the latter going to the district that was not as if you're not aware of any case it's looking for a nd extension where they don't have to know your honor and i but it again i don't think that's going to really make a difference because rule four and creates a mandatory because extension seen the text at least is silent as to whether that same mandatory scheme applies the nd extension but i think the purpose would suggest that it would because rule for end users because standard as a mechanism for balancing fairness the plaintiffs against efficiency to the issue of what should the district court in done here he is she showed good cause through her diligent efforts and potential attempt intentional evasion which are the two primary factors in our review the case law that goes to a good cause analysis so what the court should have done was asked whether she had shown good cause though she talks at great length about her diligent efforts to effect service so for instance in the filing she says plaintiff has been diligently using all options to effect service the diligent efforts of the plaintiffs are evident here in she cites diligence cases that are in the ru cause context so i think the fairest reading of this filing was as an argument that i've made diligent in herds i have not been able to effectuate service through no fault of my own that's exactly what the good cause analysis takes into account and i think there may be a good reason why she didn't styles you were wrong as to the no phone because she was supposed to serve the director not the enemy mr what happens then so the point i'd like to make about that your honor is in our in our view a good faith  sort a loan cannot establish because but it also can a race could cause when the plaintiff is otherwise in a diligent efforts to effect service through legally available mode of service which was here or for each to a personal service and she had no way of knowing ex ante that personal service would be so difficult to complete and the best case i have for that principle it's a district court case from this from the circuit it's the jewel case that we discussed on page twenty six of our brief and they're the plaintiff sought to serve the defendant through the defendant's agent and sought to serve the defendant at the defendant's registered business address service through the agent failed because the plaintiff's own good faith error just like a shark here made a good faith there but the court nonetheless found good cause because the plaintiff had diligently pursued service i'm reasonable reading but my point is that she was trying in good faith meaning she she thought that there could have been an agent she looked at the basic business license she saw that stephenson had not appointed an agent so she turned to the d c code she obviously misconstrued the d c code and regulations and she because there are roads in the context of landlord tenant suit she certain rent administrator we're not defending that reading at all of the statute all i'm saying is i don't think based on my reading of  said about that what i would say to you is if they're if the plaintiff diligently pursues one legally available mode of service which here is personal service and i don't take your orders to be disputing the fact that she was highly diligent and that most of service and there was no way for her to know ex ante to that motive service or proven effective so for instance i can tell you she had one hundred and fifty days here so when one wasn't working i would think part of diligence would beat trying something out we have to look at the vantage point that she was in at the time she received her st extension so prior to that time she had sought to effect personal service on stevens and it seems as marilyn address the certified mail which was a legal lead available mode of service in maryland may have moved away from american and your language to well beyond i mean these these are options that are available when when when when one doesn't work and go to another that's not a sign of any heroic activity this is just what the law provides absolutely honors not her of course routinely and she and she made a mistake right she she she she didn't she didn't take it she didn't serve the government official that was supposed to be certain i'm not aware of any case of it st of all we're just talking about good that's correct so what i'm saying is if you try to two options one option should have worked it only didn't work because through no fault of her own stevenson happened to be persistently absent happens all the time that happens all the time that's why you have different options right  that's and that's why i am persistently absent here for ninety or one hundred and eighty days when i'm sure when she moves no we're not talking like some couldn't leave town for a long time someone could be just retired could very well be having that trip around the world a waiting for that's possible your honor and that's that would be an extenuating or mitigating circumstance that would go toward a good cause extension and we're not we don't think that the court needs to find that this record committed clear error in terms of intentional evasion but if a person at the defending or trying to serve has told the post office for instance to hold all the aliens at the post office rather than deliver them to her or she takes a trip around the world or she moves from the address where she had lived for twenty years those are all mitigating or extra factors that the that was because at that time she was left with significant confusion about how she was supposed to affect service because now she knows well national so the question is good good good of a different government what we should now stevenson is no longer nonresident because she's moved to d c and she's no longer a landlord so she's going to have to go to personal service again and personal service has proven time and again to be difficult to complete and she had no way of knowing that i guess her point is she had no way of knowing that when she received her st extension and the reason why she didn't style her her filing with the court as a formal extension motion i would have to think is because the district court categorically stated that no further extensions would be granted and that  attorney and attorneys all the time have to go i recognize your the court said this but i believe i have a right to make this request and i'm doing it at minimum to preserve the record correct and she did file something with the court before her sixty day there were no statute of limitations consequences so the statute of limitations factor in our view never goes to good causes because a good cause focuses on the plaintiff's reasons for to let the statute of limitations could potentially go to the premise of extending the good guys to get an extension because otherwise the claims would be defeated that would be a factor for the rest of extension so rule for i'm sets up a two part test if there's good cause you have to grant an extension if there is no because you have the option of granting permission extension and that  that court's to take into account the statute of limitations but here at the time i think as you mentioned at the time this report heard the case the special limitations had not existed so can we pay any attention to it i would not say  to provide anything like that to the district court no i just part of this appeal i'm sorry if you find that website is part of this appeal or when you're in the district court i don't let website be that was the reason that i actually and i supposedly changed the web page to a p d f and saved in my notes section and somehow between something it's just all gone and well at seventy plus years i just don't remember everything the way i used to well one of the reasons you don't get to add to what was said previously about as no reason to kind of go through reasons initially i was going to go regular service and the clerk in take care of the case all senate by certified mail and then i read the rule where of course the whole when they know there's a controversy so that was my original intent and that failed miserably as i have outlined in my own document before this court for the district court one of the reasons why i didn't follow a motion for an extension was because the judge had said no and in fact eventually told me not to file anything else in the case and i could go ahead an appeal so i thought that my efforts to do so would have been fruitless so what i did was i categorize a lot of your probation that i had really guarding how i had approached service  process and i put it as additional information attached to the documents i apologize if i didn't make it a mistake and but now here we here and recording giving you more time what was your plan to do next what was the next thing you're going to write actually it occurred to me at some point that maybe  returned to me that she was supposed to pick it up i can't believe she didn't get email and i believe the situation now is referenced the fact that if service can be made that there is a preference to allow the plane on to go ahead and make their case and i believe that after all that i've learned that mail doesn't work for me and that i might have to use more extensive process or services they may have that court said that dismiss is not appropriate where there exists a reasonable prospect that service can be obtained district court gave me more time yet and i'm saying i know now that that's what i will have to do i have to pay someone to actually stake the person out rather than just going trying to make the process and i do believe i made adequate showing that there was a problem in making service but the district court erred by not giving me more time that i was essentially told not to file any more motions so all i could do was present the information to make it available and in district court without consulting me any further maybe made a ruling that the case was dismissed without prejudice if there were other issues that could arise when example  whether or not we would be in the same jurisdiction currently i live with a relative in maryland but if i wanted to return to d c then we would both be in the harmless error in my understanding of how that would work is i believe this work should vacate remain unless we think that it would be an abuse of discretion to grant her an extension of time this case so i think what the court should do if it does believe that there was a legal error honor in that set and remember this report was not asked to reconsider any aspect of its original diligence finding so i think we don't know what the district court would do on remand and i think we what we do know is that the district court was operating under a bit of a