Background
Nicole Jackson applied for supervisory writs from a proceeding pending in the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, docketed there as No. 782310. The appellate filing names Jackson against the Estate of David Newman, Jr. and Edna Newman-Blunt, individually and in her capacity as independent executrix of the succession of David Newman, Jr. The order identifies a district court judgment dated October 12, 2026, and states that one portion of that judgment denied Jackson’s request for a preliminary injunction.
The public order also refers to a grant of an exception of res judicata, but it does not describe the underlying claims, the parties’ factual dispute, or the district court’s reasoning. The only procedural history stated in the order is that Jackson sought supervisory review and that the First Circuit considered both a stay request and the writ application. The court’s ruling is expressly limited and procedural: it addresses appealability and the need for a remand so that an appeal can be granted, rather than deciding the merits of the injunction request or the res judicata issue.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit issued a short order stating: “STAY DENIED; WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER.” It held that the portion of the October 12, 2026 judgment denying Jackson’s request for a preliminary injunction is an appealable judgment, citing La. Code Civ. P. art. 3612. By contrast, the court stated that while the grant of the exception of res judicata “may be appealable,” the judgment “lacks the proper decretal language to make such a determination.” The order therefore distinguishes the injunction ruling, which the court treats as appealable, from the res judicata ruling, which the court does not conclusively classify on the current judgment language.
The operative relief is narrow. The writ application is granted “for the limited purpose of remanding this matter to the district court with instructions to grant an appeal to relator pursuant to her notice of intent to seek supervisory writs,” citing In Re Howard, 541 So.2d 195 (La. 1989) (per curiam). The court also directs that a copy of its order be included in the appellate record. The order does not grant a stay, does not reverse or modify the district court’s judgment, and does not decide whether res judicata was correctly granted.
Key Takeaways
- The First Circuit denied a stay but granted the writ application only for a limited remand.
- The denial of a preliminary injunction was treated as an appealable judgment under La. Code Civ. P. art. 3612.
- The court declined to make the same appealability determination for the res judicata ruling because the judgment lacked proper decretal language.
- The district court was instructed to grant an appeal pursuant to Jackson’s notice of intent, and the appellate order is to be included in the record.
Why It Matters
This is a procedural disposition, not a merits ruling. Its practical significance is that the First Circuit separated the immediately appealable injunction denial from the unresolved appealability status of the res judicata ruling, then used a limited writ grant to put the case on an appellate track rather than leaving Jackson to proceed only by supervisory review.
The order also underscores the importance of decretal language when a party seeks appellate review of a distinct ruling such as an exception of res judicata. Because the public order supplies no underlying factual findings or merits analysis, there is no broader holding here about the injunction standard or the correctness of res judicata; the court’s action is confined to securing an appeal and ensuring the order becomes part of the appellate record.