was whether there had been compliance with the supplemental rules specifically with the requirement of forthwith service is that correct correct that's the government's position and you take issue with the district  government were forced to refile a significant bar to litigate in this case there's this other difference and that is that if the court had decided properly that this was just not a subject manager stiction issue but one of a very reasonable it really made the same inquiry that you would like to make about whether there was any reason for the delay whether it was it was because there were bits and provide any kind of excuse inadequate  district court's order is reasonably susceptible to the construction that that the court concluded that well maybe it may not be subject matter jurisdiction but it's still a basis for me to dismiss if appropriate important what matters is that even if there was no good because there was no prejudice and therefore you have dismissed no matter how long it takes to serve whether it's reasonable or not which is  both sides had filed summary judgment motion ableton initially had filed the summary judgment motion and that was that was ruled upon and denied and the government filed its own summary judgment motion which  i suppose in that hypothetical case that would be possible but i think that would energex a lot of a tremendous amount of inefficiency in the process where you have bad different different actions we wield a little apology by referring to the limit in the district court as one of subject matter jurisdiction i'd like to clear that up the issue is under the supplemental rule before the court was my first question and just because that's the whole argument is whether this was a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and i fear it doesn't matter what you call it it's the ability of the court to render a judgment over the property court said well you know i understand the budgetary constraints but that's when in the control of the government you can't use that i'm considering that excuse i find it lacking the seventy six days is too long that's not fo the only thing the court didn't consider in the balance was whether there was any prejudice to anybody and the question you just need the court to the court have done that was an error for the court not to i think not because because  and giving that person and one other person an opportunity to be hurt is not a prejudice element there's no good cause requirement headwall in the analysis but you know that is constitutional concern of taking somebody's property and bringing the merits in effect because if you can't reverse that prejudice is worth looking at but if it's just his first thing because somebody didn't file on time and the person can file again it seems we less reason to look at the prejudice to the person for the other party because this is the government can probably again so why is it necessary to look at the president but if the government couldn't file again that would be credited to the  faced with a motion under rule for the supplemental rules who must consider for the fourth with issue maybe should consider the reasonable cause issue then the question is is that c required to look at the prejudice to either party if they're waived if he's not required to make he and they've if not maybe then as he is that not improper inquiry we're really talking about compliance with the rule or jurisdiction i'd like to point out to the court under the theory of judicial stop all that the government took the position in this particular case that the at the rule does not implicate you sometime after the articles are imported the act of seizure occurs when there's a determination made that there's probable cause that these are counterfeit goods so it would actually go before the feds very twel