facts contained in judicially noticed materials. (Id. at p. ___ [2024 WL 3408756 at p. *4]; see generally Barri v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 428, 437; In re Joseph H. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 517, 541; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120–121.) Under the circumstances, the court abused its discretion in denying the motions to dismiss. (People v. Hajjaj (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1184,

2 As the court noted in Mendoza, the opinion does not break

new legal ground. (Mendoza v. Superior Court, supra, ___ Cal.App.5th at p. ___ [2024 WL 3408756 at p. *5.) We cite it merely because the procedural posture of that case is identical in relevant respects to this one and the opinion contains a more detailed discussion of the legal authority supporting relief.

3 1197–1198 [good cause determination reviewed for abuse of discretion].) We have reached our decision after notice to all parties that we might act by issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance and after considering the response from the People. (Palma, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 180.) Because petitioner’s right to relief is obvious and no purpose would reasonably be served by further consideration of the issue, we shall issue a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1241.)

DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent superior court to vacate its orders of May 9, 2024, denying petitioner John Leibrand’s motions to dismiss pursuant to section 1382 and to enter new and different orders granting the motions. The stay of trial previously imposed by this court shall remain in effect until the remittitur issues. This decision shall be final immediately in this court upon filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)

4