With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". & Co., Inc. v. Williams, 754 So.2d 671, 677 (Fla.2000) (citation omitted)). Specifically, we have held that “[a] court may grant relief from dismissal even where good cause has not been shown if the applicable statute of limitations would bar the refiled action.” Id. at 1198. Here, the trial court’s order mentioned the parties’ stipulation that the statute of limitations had run. However, it is unclear if the trial court was aware that even without good cause, it was still permitted to grant an extension of time for service if it was warranted under the circumstances. REVERSED and REMANDED for reconsideration in light of this opinion. WOLF, C.J. and WEBSTER, J., Concur. 1 . See § 95.1 l(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). 2 . See also Chaffin v. Jacobson, 793 So.2d 102, 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>); Skrbic v. QCRC Assocs. Corp., 761 So.2d 349,

A: holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion
B: holding trial court abused its discretion by not extending the time for service where the statute of limitations had run and where service had been achieved at the time of the hearing on the motion to dismiss
C: holding trial court abused its discretion by dropping defendant as a party based on plaintiffs failure to timely serve defendant because statute of limitations had run
D: holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion
B.