Louisiana House Bill HB389

Louisiana 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/2/22
• Refer: 3/2/22
• Refer: 3/14/22
• Report Pass: 3/21/22
• Engrossed: 3/28/22
• Refer: 3/29/22
• Report Pass: 5/10/22
• Enrolled: 6/6/22
• Chaptered: 6/15/22
• Passed: 6/15/22

Caption

Provides relative to emergency suspension of legal deadlines

Impact

The bill significantly impacts the Code of Civil Procedure by enacting provisions for the emergency suspension of legal deadlines that could hinder access to justice. In addition to allowing the Supreme Court to temporarily suspend prescriptive and peremptive periods, it also establishes protocols that would allow litigants more time to file necessary pleadings post-suspension. This change aims to protect individuals' rights in response to unforeseen disasters that might otherwise limit their ability to seek legal action.

Summary

House Bill 389 aims to modify legal procedures related to prescription and peremption periods during declared emergencies in Louisiana. The bill allows for the Louisiana Supreme Court to suspend these periods for a maximum of ninety days in case of a declared state of emergency or disaster by the governor. This measure is designed to ensure that individuals maintain access to the courts during critical times when deadlines may otherwise expire due to extraordinary circumstances.

Sentiment

General sentiment around HB 389 has been supportive, reflecting a desire among legislators to ensure that legal proceedings remain accessible during emergencies. The unanimous vote (92-0) during the House Vote indicates a strong consensus on the need for such measures. Stakeholders, including legal professionals and community leaders, view the legislation as a proactive approach to safeguard the rights of citizens in times of crisis.

Contention

While the bill has garnered support, there may be underlying concerns regarding its implementation and the potential for abuse of emergency powers. Critics might argue about the implications of extending the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in emergency situations or the creation of precedents that could affect future legal practices. However, as of the last report, the focus remains on facilitating access to the court system during critical times, with no significant opposition recorded.