and apply it. See Campbell, 144 Idaho at 257-58, 159 P.3d at 894-95 (no good cause when service was late because one attorney accepted in good faith that the other attorney would remind him to serve process); Regjovich v. First Western Investments, Inc., 134 Idaho 154, 157-58, 997 P.2d 615, 618-19 (2000) (denying claim of equitable estoppel because party had readily accessible means to discover the truth, and finding no good cause on other grounds). Cf. Veal v. United States, 84 Fed.Appx. 253, 255-56 (3d Cir.2004) (reliance upon the clerk’s advice did not constitute good cause because clerk’s office has no duty to provide step-by-step guidance). The Naranjos were able to follow other procedural requirements set forth in ITCA (same); Sammis, 130 Idaho at 347, 941 P.2d at 319 (<HOLDING>). 4. Constructive notice The Naranjos next
holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause holding that a timely petition for administrative review stops the running of the statute of limitations holding neither a lack of prejudice to the defendant nor the running of the statute of limitations constitutes good cause holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense constitutes clear legal prejudice