In Pagarigan v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California, Inc. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 38, the plaintiffs' attorney failed timely to amend the complaint after a demurrer was sustained with leave to amend, resulting in dismissal of the action. The trial court found the attorney's decision not to file an amended complaint was deliberate and strategic, not mistaken or neglectful, based on two facts: the statutory time limit for amendment was clear and plaintiffs had evinced a desire to stay all proceedings pending resolution of an appeal in the same case involving different defendants. (Id. at p. 45.) Division Seven of this District held plaintiffs were not entitled to mandatory section 473 relief in part because "designing conduct is not mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect." (Pagarigan, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 45.) Alternatively, the court held that "designing conduct that leads to a dismissal is not akin to a default." (Pagarigan, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 46.) The Pagarigan attorney, who had no reason to suppose the trial court would entertain any delay in proceedings, deliberately put a halt to his own litigation.