superior court upon hearing in California

1996Our Supreme Court in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 563 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ], expressly disapproved prior cases which held a motion to dismiss must be granted unless opposed by an “adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay.” 6 The Denham court concluded: “ ‘ “It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion to dismiss that a writ of mandate to compel the dismissal of the action may properly issue.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 564, italics added.) Several courts have interpret

1996Our Supreme Court in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 563 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ], expressly disapproved prior cases which held a motion to dismiss must be granted unless opposed by an “adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay.” 6 The Denham court concluded: “ ‘ “It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion to dismiss that a writ of mandate to compel the dismissal of the action may properly issue.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 564, italics added.) Several courts have interpret

1996But this is a different question: does the trial court retain discretion when there are neither factual disputes nor any reasons justifying the delay? *240 Our Supreme Court in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 563 [ 86 Cal. Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ], expressly disapproved prior cases which held a motion to dismiss must be granted unless opposed by an "adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay." [6] The Denham court concluded: "`"It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion t

1996But this is a different question: does the trial court retain discretion when there are neither factual disputes nor any reasons justifying the delay? *240 Our Supreme Court in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 563 [ 86 Cal. Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ], expressly disapproved prior cases which held a motion to dismiss must be granted unless opposed by an "adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay." [6] The Denham court concluded: "`"It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion t

1970Donohoe Co. v. Superior Court (1927) 202 Cal. 15 , 18 ... ‘It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion to dismiss that a writ of mandate to compel the dismissal of the action may properly issue.’ ” (See also Paul W.

1946Donohoe Co. v. Superior Court (1927), 202 Cal. 15, 18 [ 258 P. 1094 ], “It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion to dismiss that a writ of mandate to compel the dismissal of the action may properly issue.” Here we cannot say, contrary to the trial court, that there was “an entire absence of any showing constituting good ground.” Particularly is this true in view of the fact that the files, papers, proceedings and records of the trial court, other than the affidavits hereinabove summarized, a

1927It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion to dismiss that a writ of mandate to compel the dismissal of the action may properly issue (Matter of Ford, 160 Cal. 334, 349 [Ann.

1923A. (N. S.) 882, 116 P. 757 ], it is said that mandamus affords a remedy to correct a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in arbitrarily refusing to dismiss an indictment, but that a peremptory writ of mandate will only issue where there was an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the superior court upon the hearing of the motion to dismiss.

1996But this is a different question: does the trial court retain discretion when there are neither factual disputes nor any reasons justifying the delay? *240 Our Supreme Court in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 563 [ 86 Cal. Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ], expressly disapproved prior cases which held a motion to dismiss must be granted unless opposed by an "adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay." [6] The Denham court concluded: "`"It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion t

1996But this is a different question: does the trial court retain discretion when there are neither factual disputes nor any reasons justifying the delay? *240 Our Supreme Court in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 563 [ 86 Cal. Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ], expressly disapproved prior cases which held a motion to dismiss must be granted unless opposed by an "adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay." [6] The Denham court concluded: "`"It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion t

1996But this is a different question: does the trial court retain discretion when there are neither factual disputes nor any reasons justifying the delay? *240 Our Supreme Court in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 563 [ 86 Cal. Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ], expressly disapproved prior cases which held a motion to dismiss must be granted unless opposed by an "adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay." [6] The Denham court concluded: "`"It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion t

1996But this is a different question: does the trial court retain discretion when there are neither factual disputes nor any reasons justifying the delay? *240 Our Supreme Court in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 563 [ 86 Cal. Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ], expressly disapproved prior cases which held a motion to dismiss must be granted unless opposed by an "adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay." [6] The Denham court concluded: "`"It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion t

1996But this is a different question: does the trial court retain discretion when there are neither factual disputes nor any reasons justifying the delay? *240 Our Supreme Court in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 563 [ 86 Cal. Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ], expressly disapproved prior cases which held a motion to dismiss must be granted unless opposed by an "adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay." [6] The Denham court concluded: "`"It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion t

1996But this is a different question: does the trial court retain discretion when there are neither factual disputes nor any reasons justifying the delay? *240 Our Supreme Court in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 563 [ 86 Cal. Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ], expressly disapproved prior cases which held a motion to dismiss must be granted unless opposed by an "adequate showing of diligence or excuse for delay." [6] The Denham court concluded: "`"It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion t

1979Co., supra, 62 Cal.App.3d at pp. 561-562; Applegate Drayage Co. v. Municipal Court, supra, 23 Cal.App.3d at p. 632 ; Dunsmuir Masonic Temple v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.App.3d 17, 20-21 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 405 ].) As the court in Denham , quoting the language of earlier cases, plainly stated: “ ‘ “It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion to dismiss that a writ of mandate to compel the dismissal of the action may properly issue.” ’ ” ( 2 Cal.3d at p. 564 ; see also Woolfson v. Personal Travel Servic

1979Co., supra, 62 Cal.App.3d at pp. 561-562; Applegate Drayage Co. v. Municipal Court, supra, 23 Cal.App.3d at p. 632 ; Dunsmuir Masonic Temple v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.App.3d 17, 20-21 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 405 ].) As the court in Denham , quoting the language of earlier cases, plainly stated: “ ‘ “It is only when there is an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in the Superior Court upon the hearing of the motion to dismiss that a writ of mandate to compel the dismissal of the action may properly issue.” ’ ” ( 2 Cal.3d at p. 564 ; see also Woolfson v. Personal Travel Servic

1970Speer, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 272 Cal.App.2d 32, 36 [2, 3].) In the present case, as will hereinafter appear, there was not “an entire absence of any showing constituting good cause presented in [respondent court] upon the hearing of the motion to dismiss.” Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate should be denied.