In Graham v. Beers (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1656, plaintiffs' lawsuit was dismissed pursuant to section 583.410 for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's counsel had filed a declaration in opposition to the order to show cause stating he erroneously believed the matter would settle and made a conscious decision to relegate the case to a back burner. (Graham, at pp. 1659-1660.) Plaintiffs then filed a motion to set aside the dismissal under the mandatory provisions of section 473 asserting attorney mistake. The motion was denied, the trial court finding that counsel had consciously disregarded the case, that the same arguments had been made in opposition to the earlier order to show cause, and a motion for relief from default may not be used to merely amplify or supplement the evidence and argument which had been presented in opposition to the original motion. (Graham, at p. 1660.) The appellate court agreed with the reasoning of the court in Tustin Plaza Partnership v. Wehage (1994), that in amending section 473 the Legislature could not have intended to undermine the court's discretion under section 583.410. And, in seeking to harmonize the facially conflicting provisions of those two sections, the court concluded that section 473 "may be used by counsel to seek relief from failure to oppose a motion to dismiss." (Graham, at p. 1661.)