life license was eventually received it did indicate for h however when the address was learned to be incomplete would be the first opportunity plaintiff would have had to acquire the driver's license which which would be one method of determining if the the rest of the apartment addressed rights sending a process server consulting with the management of the building is as office in order to get that actual physical information regarding the apartment or h or whatever it was that you're saying that is my understanding focusing on but based on its statement that it was not going to be considering the events prior to april third of twenty thirteen it first off eliminated thirty three months of activity of the case focusing only reviewing what the previous judge had looked at the previous judge actually looked at some of the factors and she i think it's safe to assume that the court was aware of the court's prior analysis and based on the read the report of the proceedings to great lengths to avoid having to address the court's prior and out that the previous judge's prior analysis or ears of the process server something that the lawyers can rely upon yes the court has held that it is reasonable for a plaintiff to rely upon the return of a process server or sheriff even if those returns contain erroneous information and really is there any iranians information that process servers presented or or not is the court's conclusion that there were all these errors and omissions is that actually supported by anything the record nothing from the process time your honor if you look at the twelve forty one months approximately twenty of those months actually twenty five and a half those months were during times when there was a parent service of process and no need no objective need to attain service he was dismissed for a further six and a half months living only nine and a half months of those forty one months when there was object if we were there there was an statements of the impracticality of service by regular means there was no assertion that defendant reside out of state and no need to assert that he decided out of state otherwise there would be no need to request leave to do that the ten to was out of state resident at the time yes and therefore it would be this silly to serve on the secretary of state i don't recall that that argument being made but if if the defendant subsequently leaves the state he offered a resident an address of which he could be located in one of his motions to dismiss pursuit one of three b that he suggest where he was during the pendency of this that he offered any evidence of a resource that plaintiff the not utilize that would have shown the ease with which he could have been located was there any evidence ever presented that suggested an accurate address maintained with the secretary of state which i believe they are service and if you look at the periods of an activity which art i do my best and plans reads you'll see that of those nine a half months there were only one hundred ninety three days six six and a half months where instances of motion before the entry of the order were stricken were withdrawn the record of silence as to what transpired on those days there is no so aside from in her brief ruling evidence is that this was given far more weight or more consideration than was appropriate as to the traditional factors  which are mechanically gone through in our in our brief will note that aside from the absence of the record of any suggestion or offered by  defendants of a suggestion of where he could have been located where he actually was during any of this time the steps of the special circumstances in this case cannot be ignored on the  record reflects that after the entry of the of the first letter after the offending of the first secretary of state's service plan of substitute some substitute defendants and conducting the necessary discovery the special circumstances that was there from the rulings of judge savage also cannot be ignored the trial court in the instance  reliance service all of the of the toll forty one months twenty five and a half months or periods of time when there was apparent service before it was quashed all of the alleged failure of diligence occurred within those first twelve months and of those first twelve months you know more then more than  plaintiff and his attorneys should have attempted somehow to find out which floor it was not and they could not discover that information until two thousand and thirteen is there anything in the record at all an where this particular defendant ever provided in the affidavit saying that i live at this address i'm winthrop apartment four h i've always lived there i could have been served there i provided it when he was there in his home and that's when you provided when there was a discovery and i told the court that he was going to be gone for a few months and i couldn't comply with the discovery while he was gone and at available from the secretary of state that day at the first instance when the sheriff said there's a force i need to know which floor if they would have got that secretary of state at that to the other we can consider it absolutely all right now let me ask you this as far as the actual knowledge on the part of the defendant the tendency of action do you agree that if the attorney is aware of the action that we can attribute the critical thing what they're your one problem with what you're saying that is that there is no information no sworn testimony no affidavit from mr m t any of that information that you're the likud case where two different physicians back there's actually provided information in link up the doctor had an office on michigan avenue he actually provided an affidavit swearing that he had hands off the side michigan avenue for twenty years in that case the court reversed the washing of service in dupont same thing in both of those cases not only do we have a defendant swearing to information about where i could have been located and the courts still held that it was an abuse of discretion to quash service process in most cases this is overstep that the people in the building  i mean it isn't it true that the plaintiff here did show with a certain special circumstances explaining their delay in the service that they do that i don't think they had any help and evidence of that missing all right they asked me to locate this guy i did this this this and this and it turned up this or it turned up that would be the proper thing not a lawyer finally an affidavit saying i hired a special class a server got they couldn't find any other information and as a matter of fact when i looked at that that's the same actual aware though that the record actually has the return not found in the other information you're not aware that these things are actually in the accident you certainly were well aware of the civil rights you were representing the other two defendants you filed your first motion to quash a year after the first efforts to i became involved but there was a lawyer then who actually i think we have to consider it it actually it sounds now like if it were a twenty eleven early twenty and that you had knowledge of the suit because you were already representing one of the camp companies and but this is a matter this ruling you have to say that judge johnson abused her discretion there is nothing to indicate that she did not consider time probably when a motion judge enters an order it's usually very brief and they don't call through an order like that savage entered the first time that that was not unusual order of the eight page order where she say certain things one of the things i think we can glean from this is that she said i'm not really going to look back at those other months i'm going to start from here all right great and this is now that's just something i'm suggesting the record says then she sa they didn't live on that floor and they could've had that information immediately walk across the street the secretary of state's office they give me his driving record up pay the five bucks give me his driving record and they've got a court up and they can make the service then and there that happened at any point during the pendency of this case is unknown and it's unknown because defendant rather than not actually offer evidence or testimony or documents showing where he actually was during the pendency of this case he's relying either the secretary of state of florida one could have but instead plaintiff sent a process server to speak with the building manager it was no less experience and probably more more expedient than waiting for documents that come from the in no documents originating during the pendency of this case they gave any indication where his actual location was during this and you know to speculate about what could have been done is always easy