fault judgment and we're asking for this court to reverse the district court order the facts are relatively straightforward in this case on may fifth two thousand and thirteen the defendant was arrested by  cook county sheriff's department used proper for full judge pursuant to a citation to discover assets there he learned that there was a default judgment against him and third by the northern district of illinois and he shortly after retained stating i was never served with process and i check my work records i didn't come in contact with the process ever so we filed it's the district court the northern district dismissed it without prejudice and request for more information or more evidence rather in the meantime the plaintiff's attorney subpoenaed the legal department of the employer asking for any and all work records showing when he worked for the month of april two thousand and thirteen personally served there's no description or anything there's nothing stating that the process server walked into the location and found out about three dozen of male caucasian so we filed that and we filed the work records as per the district court's order and the judge summarily denied it there was a suicide bomb to order entered we were expecting that there would be a hearing or that the process server would come back as most cases that i've observed in seventh circuit the processor comes back with the affidavit saying no this is what happened and then there's disputes there's evidence you're hearing to determine if service was affected but the district court just looked at the affidavit saying that he was served personally and disregarded all the work records in the affidavit stating under penalty of perjury that he was in service he was at work and and the work records confirm the same thing i mean it confirms you work monday through friday from eight to five and and that the only day off he had in april two thousand and thirteen was april eleventh and you supposedly served on april second two thousand and thirteen the court basically just looked at what the plaintiff had assumed at all that's true notwithstanding evidence to the contrary and let this eighty eight thousand dollars judgment which includes attorneys fees travel damages for a somebody because you got several of them in here there was a person who accepted service is that not that issue here or i don't think that's relevant to the issue of whether or not the district court had personal jurisdiction over the in the circuit court of cook county and i believe two in the northern district where people were contesting the validity of his service they were also claiming he wasn't served they weren't served by so you really want to hear in the hearing is what didn't occur yeah there is there is no hearing the district court's judge said the affidavit was self serving and that the work records produced by a third party third party created evidence means nothing  basically what the district court found that there is an air bubble presumption that if there is a very begun on descriptive affidavit of service that that is that's certainly true and if that were to be the case i don't know how anybody could contest service process so why why didn't the wage garnishment service get your clients attention why i think it was it was given to one of the employees and i mean never heard  well well i mean shortly after that is when we were on this case after he got the wage garnishment in the that was ten months before the arrest this is july of two thousand and thirteen well  right yeah well word we're just asking i mean i apologize but they were just asking for it to districts court to be reverse their men and for us to have hearings yet for a hearing so we can have that issue whether in service but because i mean there is it judgment promise on hundred  correct three points that the fence made in their argument first he said that the defendant checked his work records to determine whether or not he was at work at that time this is the first i've heard that he checked any work records and no such work records were ever filed with the district court with regard to the description he claims that the defendant is not caucasian i just like to note that the defendant is turkish and as far as i know turkey is in europe so that would be considered caucasian as far as the court saying that there was an iraq that rebuttable presumption that district court never said there was in a rebuttal presumption of service  with regard to the the standard here the decision to set aside a judgment is left to the district courts discretion on appeal the district court's decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion there is an exception of course when the district court finds service to be invalid if the district court found service to be invalid it would be a percy abuse of discretion to not grant the motion so how does possibly be resolved based on conflicting evidence that there are there it's true there are two conflicting affidavits one is from a licensed process server who does this for a living and really has no interest in this case and the other is done by the defendant who is trying to get out of a judgment so so we say all the time that we that self serving affidavits are affidavit so it's evidence you can question their credibility but they present factual issues that have to be resolved so how can this be resolved on the face just on the face of the affidavit your honor they can be resolved by going into the motivations the parties and why what reason they had for making the statements they made in those affidavits factually discuss credibility that's true you're out can he do that all by himself he  so without without you anything i would i would not say he was reading it i would say it was not without anything i should note that when they first presented their motion to set aside they did have an opportunity to make case however that case disregarded what they what homer called the o'brien presumption and the o'brian presumption stands for the presumption that if there is a valid return of service filed in th case the district court will presume that this service is valid and that presumption till there is conflicting evidence your honor the court's there says until there is strong and convincing evidence to rebut that presumption in this case the district court did not find that the defendant's affidavit which was presented twice before the district court is going to be able to testify about that he there were two people according to your evidence two people in a face to face encounter right yes and you seem to be saying that there is or near rebuttable presumption that the district judge or at or judge may choose simply on the face of the affidavits i'm going to believe this one and not that one your honor that it's not a rebuttable it can be rebutted with strong convincing evidence and the defendants here were given two opportunities to provide evidence  rather than provide the evidence of a third party perhaps a supervisor perhaps a coworker perhaps some documentary evidence showing that i was at work maybe an e mail you asked for all the records about his time in the time indicates the only time he was off was a different day right correct your honor we asked for some records but that doesn't mean that defendants couldn't have done their own independent investigation and present the strongest case possible if they wanted a motion to set aside again they had two opportunities to do so and the fact that they chose not to get any other evidence from any other witnesses to support their case i mean they've already had two opportunities i don't really know what a third opportunity would give them here and again to say i'm just to remind the court that this is an abuse of discretion standard the district court did find valid service because it found valid service it's up to the district court and its discretion to determine whether or not to grant that motion to set aside the defend its would like to argue that they found invalid service and therefore it must be automatically reversed and remanded however i'd just like to remind the court that it is a discretionary decision and the trial court this is why this is not a matter of discretion and if service was not made there's no discretion as to whether they had the right so such correct so we got a factual finding yes you're saying the district judge has discretion to choose which affidavit to believe which case is that your honor there's been no cases cited by defendants that say that by you saying that a district judge basis for credit in one party or another so we think that makes sense i mean you have two conflicting activists and one of them is more detail than the other so in order to comply with the traditions of due process and notice an opportunity to respond our client should have had notice he didn't have notice of these proceedings and then as soon as he got notice the proceedings within a week after he discovered the northern district judge meant we moved to set aside the judgement and we were very diligent in that and he wants to be able to defend himself on the merits so we would ask that this court reverse this or score order denying every new motion and remand it for a plenary hearing on the issue of service to see whether or not after evidence is presented and as your honor stated with cross examination and everything that is associated with you know due process that if in fact she was served or if you wasn't served and that determination should be left up after evidence you're hearing but not by looking at two pieces of paper and i'll add that we didn't we had third party evidence we had the evidence from the employer and other than work records and time off requests i don't know what evidence could be shown i mean in this the the service allegedly happened over a year ago housing employees want to remember on a certain day whether or not a certain person was there unless people have somebody cameras on them twenty four seven i mean i think the work records that say monday through friday no in their absence yeah i don't know in their absence and it would have been reflected in the return from the legal department of the company that mr campbell i used to work for