What is the test for determining whether a court has considered all of the relevant factors under section 389 (b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure?

[Citation.] (County of San Joaquin v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1154, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 277.) The subdivision (b) factors are not arranged in a hierarchical order, and no factor is determinative or necessarily more important than another. [Citation.] (Id., at p. 1149, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 277.)

We presume that the trial court considered the relevant factors. (See Dubois v. Corroon & Black Corp. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1696, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 719 [the court is presumed to be correct in its ruling and need not specifically state that it has considered all of the relevant factors...]; see also People v. Myers (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 305, 310, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 564.) To carry their burden of showing an abuse of discretion, appellants must present meaningful analysis concerning the application of the Code of Civil Procedure section 389, subdivision (b) factors to the underlying facts. The analysis must be supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 453.)