In Bush v. Beemer, 224 Mich. App. 457; 569 N.W.2d 636 (1997), the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint the day before the effective date of the tort reform measures codified by 1993 PA 78. Bush, supra at 459. Ten days before the expiration of the original summons, the plaintiff filed an ex parte petition for the issuance of a second summons. Id. The plaintiff alleged that she was seeking new counsel and that her counsel needed more time to investigate the case before serving process. Id. The trial court granted the plaintiff's request for the issuance of a second summons and the plaintiff served process on the defendants before the expiration of the second summons. Id. The defendants moved to quash the second summons and for summary disposition, arguing that the plaintiff failed to show good cause for the issuance of the second summons. The trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the case without prejudice. 224 Mich. App. at 460. On appeal, the Court interpreted the good cause requirement of MCR 2.102(D) to require a showing of due diligence in trying to serve process during the period provided by the first summons, adding that the due diligence requirement applies even where the dismissal of the case results in the plaintiff's claims being barred by the statute of limitations. Bush, 224 Mich. App. at 462-463. The Court emphasized that "due diligence under MCR 2.102(D) means diligent efforts in trying to serve process, not diligence in matters logically preceding the decision to serve process." Id. at 464. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal. 224 Mich. App. at 466.