Bellm v. Bellia

I respectfully dissent. The policy of the law is to favor a hearing on the merits, particularly where it appears a defense could be *1039made. (Weitz v. Yankosky (1966) 63 Cal.2d 849, 854 [48 Cal.Rptr. 620, 409 P.2d 700]; Baske v. Burke (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 38, 43 [177 Cal.Rptr. 794].) “Rigid rule following is not always consistent with a court’s function to see that justice is done.” (Kapitanski v. Von’s Grocery Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32 [193 Cal.Rptr. 839].) There is no dispute that Mr. Bellia’s attorney acted promptly when notified his client had been served. While Mr. Bellia obviously…