Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): his failure to appear personally at the hearing. This distinguishes this case from cases where a party never appears in an action, and a default judgment is granted at trial. See, e.g., Ladson v. BPM Corp., 2004 S.D. 74, ¶¶ 22-25, 681 N.W.2d 863, 869 (upholding a default judgment granted to the plaintiff at trial where the defendant corporation never answered the complaint or otherwise appeared in the action by counsel as required by law and as repeatedly instructed by the circuit court). 6 . Accord Bloch v. Bentfield, 1 Ariz.App. 412, 403 P.2d 559, 564 (1965) ("When a case is regularly called for trial, the trial may proceed although one party does not appear and this is not a hearing as by default.”); Heidary v. Yadollahi, 99 Cal.App.4th 857, 121 Cal. Rptr.2d 695, 699 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Ohio Valley Radiology Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that despite failure to appear for trial default could not be entered without notice to defendant (B) holding that trial court must make entry of default prior to entry of default judgment and court may not make entry of default when there is no default in law or in fact (C) holding that default judgment was not warranted where the defendant answered late but answered (D) holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment (E) holding 1 that where a defendant who previously answered does not appear for trial a plaintiffs only remedy is to make a motion with the court to continue with that trial 2 that entry of default is not authorized and 3 that the hearing held under such circumstances is uncontested as distinguished from a default hearing 1 quoting warden v lamb 98 calapp 738 277 p 867 868 1929
Output (English): holding that despite failure to appear for trial default could not be entered without notice to defendant