Jeremy Paul Ducote v. Carley Katherine Magette

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
JEREMY PAUL DUCOTE
VS.
CARLEY KATHERINE MAGETTE
No. 2022-CC-00996
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: Jeremy Paul Ducote - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
P
arish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Number(s) 125,932, Court of
A
ppeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2021 CW 1582;
_ _
_ _ _ _
Ju
ne 29, 202 2
Writ application not considered. No t timely filed. Se e per c uriam.
SJC
JDH
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
Weimer, C.
J., c oncurs and assigns reasons.
Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 29, 2022
06/29/2022 "See News Release 032 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2022-CC-00996
J
EREMY PAUL DUCOTE
VS.
CARLEY KATHERINE MAGETTE
O
n Supervisory Writ to the 23rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension
P
ER CURIAM
P
retermitting the merits, we find this application is untimely. The court of
appeal denied the plaintiff’s writ on February 3, 2022 and mailed notice of judgment
to all parties on the same day. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule X, § 5(a), 1 any
application to this court was due on or before Monday, March 7, 2022. This
application was e-filed with this court on Thursday, June 23, 2022, over three months
after the delay expired.
Accordingly, we decline to consider the application.2
1 Supreme Court Rule X, § 5(a) provides in pertinent part:
An application seeking to review a judgment of the court of appeal
either after an appeal to that court, or after that court has granted
relief on an application for supervisory writs (but not when the court
has merely granted an application for purposes of further
consideration), or after a denial of an application, shall be made
within thirty days of the mailing of the notice of the original
judgment of the court of appeal; however, if a timely application for
rehearing has been filed in the court of appeal in those instances
where a rehearing is allowed, the application shall be made within
thirty days of the mailing of the notice of denial of rehe aring or the
judgment on rehearing. No extension of time therefor will be
granted.
2 We are cognizant that plaintiff’s counsel serves in the Louisiana Legislature and the subject
matter of the writ application involves an interpretation of the legislative continuance provisions
set forth in La. R.S. 13:4163. However, there is no indication counsel has invoked these provisions
in connection with his filing in this court, nor did he seek any extension within the original thirty-
day deadline for applying for supervisory review under La. Code Civ. P. art. 2166 and Supreme
Court Rule X, § 5(a). Moreover, we note La. R.S. 13:4163(F) provides the legislative continuance
provisions “shall not apply to cases in the Supreme Court of Louisiana. . . .”