Background
The City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge sought supervisory review in litigation pending in the 19th Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish, No. 712216.
The City filed its notice of intent on March 27, 2026. The trial court set a return date of April 24, 2026, but the First Circuit stated that the writ application appeared to have been filed after that date and that the record did not show a timely extension.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit did not consider the City’s writ application because it appeared untimely under Uniform Rules of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-3. That rule provides that an untimely supervisory-writ application will not be considered absent a showing that the delay was not the applicant’s fault.
The court did not address the merits. It stated that supplementation or rehearing would not be considered, but permitted the City to file a new application by August 25, 2026, with documentation establishing timeliness, all pertinent materials, and a copy of the ruling.
Key Takeaways
- A supervisory-writ application filed after the return date is not considered unless the applicant shows the delay was not its fault.
- The court treated the City’s application as facially untimely because no timely extension appeared in the record.
- A replacement writ application must document timeliness and comply with Rule 2-12.2.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores that Louisiana writ practice is deadline-driven. A notice of intent alone does not preserve review if the application is filed after the return date without a timely obtained extension or an adequate showing excusing the delay.