motion or for any other calendar setting, shall promptly give no tice advising all other parties who have appeared in the action so that cross motions may, insofar as possible, be heard on a single hearing date. (Emphasis added.) Application of this rule would appear to require that appellant move for a hearing. Additionally, in State v. Due, which also involved the forfeiture of a bail bond, this court noted that no evidentiary hearing was requested, which implied that the appellant was not automatically entitled to a hearing. 427 N.W.2d 276, 277 (Minn.App.1988), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28,1988). Moreover, the phrase “shall be heard” does not necessarily mean that a party is entitled to an oral hearing. See, e.g., Sweet v. Comm’r of Human Servs., 702 N.W.2d 314, 321 (Minn.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). And the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure do
holding that a party against whom a motion for summary judgment is filed is entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard holding that an essential component of procedural fairness is an opportunity to be heard holding that counselors opportunity to submit his written case to the commissioner along with any supporting documents satisfied his right to be heard holding that a predeprivation opportunity to be heard satisfies the due process clause