How does an Ex Parte motion differ from a Motion on Notice?

How does an Ex Parte motion differ from a Motion on Notice?

• A. Ex parte requires notice; Motion on Notice does not
• B. Ex parte involves no notice to the opponent; Motion on Notice requires notice and opportunity to be heard
• C. They are the same
• D. Ex parte can be appealed directly

Answer: (B)

Notice and the opportunity to be heard drive the difference. An ex parte motion is a request made by one party without notifying the other party or giving them a chance to participate before the court rules. It’s used in urgent situations where delay would cause harm, and the court may grant relief based on the moving party’s one-sided presentation, with the understanding that the other side can challenge it later. A motion on notice, by contrast, requires serving the motion on the opposing party and holding a hearing where that party can respond. The notice and hearing ensure due process and an adversarial process before relief is granted. That’s why the correct statement is that ex parte involves no notice to the opponent, while a motion on notice requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Notice and the opportunity to be heard drive the difference. An ex parte motion is a request made by one party without notifying the other party or giving them a chance to participate before the court rules. It’s used in urgent situations where delay would cause harm, and the court may grant relief based on the moving party’s one-sided presentation, with the understanding that the other side can challenge it later. A motion on notice, by contrast, requires serving the motion on the opposing party and holding a hearing where that party can respond. The notice and hearing ensure due process and an adversarial process before relief is granted. That’s why the correct statement is that ex parte involves no notice to the opponent, while a motion on notice requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.