Opinion ID: 204485
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Motions Versus Applications

Text: Relief pursuant to a contested matter must be requested by motion. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9014(a). The rule provides for service of the motion, application of certain rules governing the resolution of adversary proceedings, and testimony of witnesses taken in the same manner as in an adversary proceeding. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9014(b)-(e). Appellant argues that Local Rule of Bankruptcy Practice 9020, which requires an application for an order to show cause under Local Rule of Bankruptcy Practice 9013, is invalid because it conflicts with Bankruptcy Rule 9020, which requires a motion under Bankruptcy Rule 9014(a). This is a purely semantic distinction. Appellant argues that in the Southern District of California, an Application is more of a request, a petition, and lacks the formalities of a motion. Aside from bare argumentation, Appellant cites to no local rule delineating any difference in form or substance between motions and applications in the Southern District of California, and the words are generally considered synonymous. See Black's Law Dictionary 1106 (9th ed. 2009) (defining motion as [a] written or oral application requesting a court to make a specified ruling or order (emphasis added)). Moreover, Appellant did not in fact file any pleading, however titled, for an order to show cause in the bankruptcy case, so he cannot complain that the process required under Bankruptcy Rule 9020 was not afforded to him due to an inconsistent local rule. There is no indication that the bankruptcy court would have refused to abide by Bankruptcy Rule 9020 had Appellant applied for an order to show cause rather than having moved for one.