In what circumstances will a second judge grant a motion to advance the trial date?

While both courts concluded that it was error for the second judge to revisit an issue previously determined by a different judge, the disposition of [12 Cal.App.4th 1743] the case on appeal was different. In Curtin, the court remanded the matter with directions to refer the motion to dismiss back to the judge who had granted plaintiffs' motion to advance the trial date because the basis for the judge's ruling on that motion was unclear. (Curtin v. Koskey, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d 873, 878, 282 Cal.Rptr. 706.) The motion could have been granted "simply to protect plaintiffs from the expiration of the five-year dismissal period (Code Civ.Proc., 583.310), contemplating that the issue of plaintiffs' diligence in prosecuting their action would be decided later in a motion to dismiss" (id., at p. 877, 282 Cal.Rptr. 706) or may have been based on the judge's finding that plaintiffs' delay was excusable. Because the judge had the power to reconsider its earlier ruling, remand was proper and it was unnecessary to determine whether the judge had abused his discretion in granting the motion to advance. (Id., at p. 878, fn. 3, 282 Cal.Rptr. 706.)