In Tustin Plaza Partnership v. Wehage (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1557, plaintiff appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit under section 583.410 for failure to bring the action to trial within three years. Plaintiff had opposed the motion in the trial court on public policy grounds favoring disposition of a case on its merits. Plaintiff also submitted the declaration of its attorney who stated his heavy caseload prevented him from devoting the necessary time to the case. (Tustin, at p. 1563.) The appellate court noted that effective January 1, 1993, section 473 had been amended to provide the mandatory relief provisions for attorney fault resulting in default. Although the dismissal at issue occurred before the effective date of the amended provisions of section 473, the court noted in dicta that the new provision would have had no application to the circumstances presented. The court stated that a party defending against a section 583 motion cannot rely on the mandatory provisions of section 473 in that such relief was viable only for a plaintiff who had failed to oppose a motion, in order to allow belated opposition to the underlying motion, and the mandatory provision had no application when a motion had actually been opposed. (Tustin, at p. 1564.) The court concluded that a plaintiff who has had a "day in court" to oppose a section 583.410 motion is not allowed a second bite.