ALFRED FLUGENCE v. CITY OF BROUSSARD (2026)

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the attached judgment and written opinion was rendered this date and a copy was mailed to the trial judge, all counsel of record and all parties not represented by counsel as listed above.

FOR THE COURT

Renée R. Simien Clerk of Court

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

26-199

ALFRED FLUGENCE

VERSUS

CITY OF BROUSSARD

Judgment rendered and mailed to all parties or counsel on October 28, 2026. Applications for rehearing may be filed within the delays allowed by La. Code Civ. P. art. 2166 or La. Code Crim. P. art. 922.

APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2025-5977 HONORABLE MICHELLE M. BREAUX, DISTRICT JUDGE

CHARLES G. FITZGERALD JUDGE

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Ledricka J. Thierry, Judges

EAP

CGF

LJT

VACATED AND REMANDED.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

26-199

ALFRED FLUGENCE

VERSUS

CITY OF BROUSSARD

APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2025-5977 HONORABLE MICHELLE M. BREAUX, DISTRICT JUDGE

CHARLES G. FITZGERALD JUDGE

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Ledricka J. Thierry, Judges

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Alfred Flugence 105 Tunica Bayou Road Broussard, Louisiana 70818 (337) 442-8513 Plaintiff/Appellant: In Proper Person

Joy C. Rabalais Jordan John Henagan Grant R. Schexnailder Hunter B. Ahia Borne, Wilkes & Rabalais, L.L.C. Post Office Box 4305 Lafayette, Louisiana 70502-4305 (337) 232-1604 Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: City of Broussard

FITZGERALD, Judge.

In this appeal, we are asked to review the trial court judgment that denied Alfred Flugence's request for writ of mandamus, finding that the City of Broussard sufficiently responded to his public records request.

On March 22, 2025, Plaintiff, Alfred Flugence, had an encounter with two police officers from the Broussard City Police. Plaintiff was temporarily placed in handcuffs but was then released. Two days later, he filed a formal complaint against both officers.

Next, on August 4, 2025, Plaintiff sent by email a public records request to Defendant, the City of Broussard. Plaintiff's request sought various information about his March 2025 incident with the police. The City of Broussard responded to the request. Thereafter, the parties disagreed as to sufficiency of the response.

Ultimately, on September 2, 2025, Plaintiff initiated legal proceedings against the City of Broussard by filing a Motion for Judicial Review of Public Records Request, which the trial court correctly construed as a petition for writ of mandamus.

Four weeks later, on September 29, 2025, Plaintiff sent the City of Broussard a second public records request. The city also responded to that request. But here too, the sufficiency of the response is disputed.

The mandamus hearing was held on November 10, 2025. After listening to the parties’ arguments, the trial court denied Plaintiff's request from the bench. The trial court's ruling was reduced to a written final judgment signed on November 19, 2025. Plaintiff appealed.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Appellate courts are courts of record and may not review or consider evidence that has not first been properly and officially offered, introduced, and considered in the proceedings below. Denoux v. Vessel Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 07-2143 (La. 5/21/08), 983 So.2d 84. Record evidence consists of witness testimony, exhibits admitted into evidence, stipulations of fact, judicial admissions, and judicially noticed adjudicative facts or legal matters.

Here, the record is clear that no evidence was introduced at the mandamus hearing. No witnesses were called to testify; no exhibits were admitted into evidence, not even Plaintiff's requests for public records or the city's corresponding responses; no stipulations of fact were recited to the court; neither party made any judicial admissions; and the court did not take judicial notice of any adjudicative facts or legal matters.

Although counsel for the City of Broussard did attempt to make an evidentiary offering of the documents attached to its memorandum, the transcript reflects that the trial court was never afforded the opportunity to rule on the admissibility of those documents. There was no colloquy between the trial court and counsel regarding the evidentiary offering. And there was no ruling by the trial court admitting the documents into evidence.

Instead, all we have is a transcript of unsworn argument. And unsworn argument, no matter how artful, is not evidence. Flores v. Brown Builders, Inc., 17-73 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/18/17), 229 So.3d 1015.

DISPOSITION

The trial court judgment of November 19, 2025, is vacated, and this matter is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

VACATED AND REMANDED.