With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1993) (Lyons II), we concluded that the earlier dismissal of the case did not bar the plaintiff from invoking the savings statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-126, and refiling his complaint: [To] toll the limitations period and to invoke the saving statute, a plaintiff need only file his or heir complaint withing the statute of limitations and complete timely service on a defendant. A court’s later ruling finding that completed service invalid does not disinherit the plaintiff from the benefit of the saving statute. Lyons II, 315 Ark. at 177, 866 S.W.2d at 374; see also Thomson v. Zufari, 325 Ark. 208, 924 S.W.2d 796 (1996); Hicks v. Clark, 316 Ark. 148, 870 S.W.2d 750 (1994); Green v. Wiggins, 304 Ark. 484, 803 S.W.2d 536 (1991); Nelson v. Wakefield, 282 Ark. 285, 668 S.W.2d 29 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, here we are upholding the circuit

A: holding that the plaintiff did not complete service when she made no attempt to serve the defendant within the time required by the arkansas procedural rules
B: holding that the trial court should have granted a motion for relief from judgment when it was the trial courts failure to serve the defendant with notice of the final judgment as required by rule 1080h1 that prevented the defendant from timely appealing
C: holding failure to complete timely service on defendant prevented plaintiff from invoking savings statute
D: holding that the plaintiffs did not complete service for purposes of the savings statute when they served the defendant with a complaint signed by an unlicensed attorney a nullity under arkansas law and made no attempt to serve the defendant with the amended complaint
C.