In Thomas v. Heirs of Braffet, 6 Utah 2d 57, 305 P.2d 507 (Utah 1956), the Court refused to draw a distinction between a notice of dismissal and a "perfunctory" motion to dismiss, stating that "whether the plaintiff proceeds merely by filing a notice of dismissal, or has the court sign an order, it is an ex parte dismissal without notice to the other side." 305 P.2d at 513. In explaining its decision, the Thomas court reasoned that a perfunctory motion to dismiss was indistinguishable from a notice of dismissal "because the usual practice in this State is to present an order of dismissal for the judge to sign, which he does as a matter of course where there has been no appearance on the other side." Id. Thus, Thomas clearly expanded the meaning of a notice of dismissal to include a perfunctory, or ex parte, motion to dismiss.