Rule Text
A. Except for good cause shown, the court and division or section rendering an interdiction judgment shall conduct all post-judgment proceedings related to the interdiction.
B. Except for good cause shown, all proceedings for injunction pursuant to Article 3601 et seq., including ancillary proceedings, involving an interdicted person as applicant or as an adverse party, shall be conducted by the court and division or section rendering the interdiction judgment.
C. Any proceeding under this Article pending in any court or division, or section, other than the court and division or section rendering the interdiction judgment, shall be transferred immediately to the court and division or section rendering the interdiction judgment upon motion of any party or upon motion of the court.
Amendment history: Acts 2000, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 25, §3, eff. July 1, 2001; Acts 2008, No. 806, §1, eff. July 7, 2008.
Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)
This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
When someone is declared "interdicted" (meaning a court has decided they need help managing their affairs due to a mental or physical condition), the same court and the same judge who made that original decision usually handles everything that comes up afterward. This keeps one judge in charge of the person's case instead of having different judges make separate decisions about the same person.
This rule also applies to injunction requests, which are court orders telling someone to do something or stop doing something. If the interdicted person is involved in an injunction case, either as the person asking for it or the person it's against, that case normally goes to the same judge who handled the interdiction.
If a related case accidentally gets filed with a different judge or in a different court division, it has to be moved to the original judge's court. This can happen automatically, or either side in the case can ask for the transfer. The only exception to any of this is if there's a good reason to handle things differently, which the court would need to approve.
