employed knowledge at his command, made diligent inquiry, and exerted an honest and conscientious effort appropriate to the circumstances, to acquire the information necessary to enable him to effect personal service on the defendant.” McDaniel v. McElvy, 91 Fla. 770, 108 So. 820, 831 (1926); see Gmaz, 238 So.2d at 514. Further, “when a ‘red flag’ is waved to a complainant notifying or warning him of facts which put him on a reasonable course of inquiry as to the whereabouts or residence of a party-defendant to his law suit, he is bound to follow that course to its logical end.” Id. Stevens had notice of facts that she should have followed before resorting to service by publication. The record indicates that when Stevens filed her complaint she and her attorney kn (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (<HOLDING>). Wolfe also argues that the trial court erred
holding that aliens failure to exercise due diligence in not inquiring into immigration status for eight years despite knowing that removal proceedings had commenced precluded equitable tolling of deadline for filing motion to reopen holding that the plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in attempting to locate the defendant where she failed to follow an obviouslead to the defendants whereabouts by inquiring of the defendants known attorney holding that defendant failed to exercise due diligence by neglecting to use a thirtysixhour window to secure an affidavit recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach holding that the statute of limitations did not commence  despite the filing of a prior complaint against another physician  until the defendants deposition made the plaintiff aware of the defendants involvement in the decedents death where the plaintiff failed to discover the defendants involvement because of the defendants misstatement concealment or fraud