circumstances, and inadvertent error or ignorance of governing rules alone will not excuse the failure to serve. Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir.1992). The plaintiff, in her declaration filed May 13, 1998, has attempted to explain why the defendants were not served within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. The declaration sets forth several broad and varied grounds, which must be considered. First, as noted above, the lack of legal training and an attorney does not constitute good cause. Hamilton, 981 F.2d at 1065. Ill health, however, may constitute good cause; but, additional information from plaintiff about her ill health, and its incapacitating nature, would be required to show good cause. See LeMaster v. City of Winnemucca, 113 F.R.D. 37, 39 (D.Nev.1986) (<HOLDING>); Moorehead v. Miller, 102 F.R.D. 834, 836
holding plaintiffs counsels illness constitutes good cause holding that the incontestability provisions of the policy did not cause a preexisting illness to be covered because the illness first manifested itself before the policy became effective holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause holding that a mental illness limitation limiting the maximum payment for care of mental illness or care of nervous conditions of any type or cause is ambiguous because the plan contains no definition or explanation of the term mental illness  and thus construed against the insurance company does not include physically based illnesses holding neither a lack of prejudice to the defendant nor the running of the statute of limitations constitutes good cause