With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the aid of the attorney general’s office. With nothing to indicate that the Naranjos’ trial attorney could not have independently ascertained or verified the proper service procedures, we conclude that their reliance on the advice of a deputy attorney general was not reasonable, and does not constitute good cause. 3. Prejudice The Naranjos point out that they are prejudiced by the dismissal of their action because the claim is now barred by the statute of limitations, while IDOC would have suffered no prejudice from the late service. Our Supreme Court has made it clear, however, that neither a lack of prejudice to the defendant nor the running of the statute of limitations demonstrates good cause for noncompliance with I.R.C.P. 4(a)(2). Campbell, 144 Idaho at 257, 159 P.3d at 894 (<HOLDING>); Martin, 133 Idaho at 375-76, 987 P.2d at

A: holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause
B: holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice
C: holding that lack of good faith is a valid basis to dismiss a chapter 7 case for cause under section 707a
D: holding neither a lack of prejudice to the defendant nor the running of the statute of limitations constitutes good cause
A.