Lavigne — Writ application not considered because it omitted the signed judgment

Case
Christopher Lavigne v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. and Ashley Gaitan
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit
Judge
THERIOT (elected 2012); LANIER (elected 2018)
Date Decided
August 4, 2026
Docket No.
2026 CW 0614
Topics
Supervisory Writs, Appellate Procedure, Filing Requirements
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. sought supervisory review of proceedings in Christopher Lavigne’s action against the insurer and Ashley Gaitan in Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge.

The writ application did not include a copy of the signed judgment for which review was sought. Rule 4-5(C)(6) of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal requires that document to accompany a supervisory writ application.

The Court’s Holding

The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit did not consider the writ application because the required signed judgment was missing. The court therefore did not reach the merits of Church Mutual’s request for supervisory review.

The court stated that it would not consider supplementation of the deficient application or an application for rehearing. It permitted Church Mutual to file a new application containing all pertinent documentation, complying with Rule 2-12.2, and including a copy of the court’s ruling. Any new application must be filed on or before September 3, 2026.

Key Takeaways

  • A Louisiana supervisory writ application must include a copy of the signed judgment under Rule 4-5(C)(6).
  • The court will not allow supplementation or rehearing to cure this omission.
  • The relator may file a compliant new application by September 3, 2026, with the missing documentation and a copy of this ruling.

Why It Matters

The ruling underscores that compliance with appellate filing requirements is a prerequisite to supervisory review. Omitting the signed judgment can prevent consideration of the writ without any decision on the underlying merits.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top