First Circuit: Denies Writ in Lisa Romero Dugal v. Orangetheory Fitness Mandeville

• The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, denied a supervisory writ application in the case of Lisa Romero Dugal, et al. v. Hawthorne Nola3, LLC d/b/a Orangetheory Fitness-Mandeville, et al.
• The writ was sought by Purpose Brands Holdings, L.L.C., Purpose Brands, L.L.C., and Purpose Brands Intermediate, L.L.C., challenging a ruling from the 22nd Judicial District Court in St. Tammany Parish.
• Issued on September 25, 2026, the denial, under appellate case number NO. 2026 CW 0825, means the lower court's order remains in effect.
• Judges Penzato, Lanier, and Fields presided over the decision to deny the writ, allowing the underlying litigation to proceed in the trial court.

This ruling signifies the Louisiana First Circuit's decision to deny supervisory writs, meaning the lower court's order in this specific case stands for now.

The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, recently declined to intervene in an ongoing legal dispute, denying a supervisory writ application filed by several entities associated with Purpose Brands. The appellate court's decision, issued on September 25, 2026, pertains to the case of Lisa Romero Dugal, et al. v. Hawthorne Nola3, LLC d/b/a Orangetheory Fitness-Mandeville, et al., which is currently proceeding in the 22nd Judicial District Court for St. Tammany Parish.

The specific applicants seeking the supervisory writ were Purpose Brands Holdings, L.L.C., Purpose Brands, L.L.C., and Purpose Brands Intermediate, L.L.C. Their application, identified under appellate case number NO. 2026 CW 0825, sought review of a ruling from the lower court, where the original case bears the number 2025 16492. The denial means that the lower court's order, which the Purpose Brands entities sought to challenge, will stand for the time being, allowing the proceedings in St. Tammany Parish to continue without immediate appellate interruption.

The panel of judges overseeing this particular writ application included Judges Penzato, Lanier, and Fields. Their collective decision to deny the writ underscores the discretionary nature of such appellate interventions, particularly at an interlocutory stage of litigation. This procedural outcome does not resolve the underlying merits of the dispute between Lisa Romero Dugal and Hawthorne Nola3 LLC, operating as Orangetheory Fitness Mandeville, but rather addresses the appellate court's willingness to review a specific lower court decision at this juncture.

In Louisiana, supervisory writs are a mechanism through which a party can ask an appellate court to review an interlocutory ruling by a lower court before a final judgment is rendered. Unlike an appeal, which typically follows a final decision, a supervisory writ is discretionary and is generally granted only when the lower court's ruling is clearly erroneous, causes irreparable injury, or presents a novel legal question that requires immediate guidance. The Louisiana First Circuit, like other appellate courts in the state, exercises significant discretion in deciding whether to grant such applications.

The denial of a supervisory writ, as seen in the Lisa Romero Dugal v. Hawthorne Nola3 LLC case, signifies that the appellate court found no compelling reason to exercise its supervisory authority at this stage. This could be due to various factors, including a determination that the lower court's ruling was not clearly incorrect, that any potential error could be adequately addressed on a full appeal after a final judgment, or that the issue presented did not warrant immediate intervention. It is not a judgment on the ultimate validity of the claims or defenses in the underlying litigation.

For legal practitioners, understanding the high bar for supervisory writ grants is crucial. The 22nd Judicial District Court, situated in St. Tammany Parish, is the venue where the primary litigation is unfolding, and its rulings remain in effect unless overturned through a successful appeal or, in rare instances, a granted supervisory writ. The appellate court's decision here reinforces the principle that trial courts generally maintain control over their proceedings until a final, appealable judgment is issued.

This ruling signifies the Louisiana First Circuit's decision to deny supervisory writs, meaning the lower court's order in this specific case stands for now. For the parties involved in Lisa Romero Dugal v. Orangetheory Fitness Mandeville, this means that the challenged ruling from the 22nd Judicial District Court remains in force, and the litigation will proceed based on that decision. The Purpose Brands entities, having had their writ application 2026 CW 0825 denied, must now contend with the implications of the lower court's order as the case progresses toward a potential trial or other resolution.

Lawyers should understand that such denials indicate the appellate court's disinclination to intervene procedurally at this stage, impacting strategies for seeking immediate review of district court decisions. It underscores the importance of building a strong record at the trial court level and recognizing that appellate intervention on interlocutory matters is an exception, not the rule. While the denial does not preclude future appeals on the merits of the case once a final judgment is rendered, it does close off one avenue for immediate appellate relief.

The outcome in this St. Tammany Parish writ application serves as a reminder of the procedural hurdles in Louisiana's appellate system. It highlights that even significant legal questions may not warrant immediate appellate review if they do not meet the stringent criteria for supervisory writs. The case will now continue its course in the 22nd Judicial District Court, with the original parties, including Lisa Romero Dugal and Hawthorne Nola3 LLC, moving forward under the existing trial court orders.

This ruling signifies the Louisiana First Circuit's decision to deny supervisory writs, meaning the lower court's order in this specific case stands for now. Lawyers should understand that such denials indicate the appellate court's disinclination to intervene procedurally at this stage, impacting strategies for seeking immediate review of district court decisions.

Source: Original reporting via Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit filing.