Does Section 664.6 require a noticed motion as opposed to an ex parte motion?

The Needelman court likewise rejected the argument that "section 664.6 requires a noticed motion as opposed to an ex parte motion." (Needelman, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 764.) Characterizing the contention as "misguided," the court explained "[t]he words 'upon motion' " in section 664.6 are properly understood, as in other contexts, to "mean a request of a party." (Ibid., citing Oppenheimer v. Deutchman (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d Supp. 875, 879.) Because the respondents "sought judgment as specifically provided for in the settlement agreement," the Needelman court held entry of judgment upon ex parte notice was consistent with the governing statute. (Id. at p. 764)