Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 591 currently provides the prerequisites for collective redress, referred to as “class actions” in Louisiana. Originally enacted in 1961, the Code of Civil Procedure provided the first statutory authority for class actions in Louisiana, which was primarily patterned on the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 governing class actions in US federal courts. However, given Louisiana’s liberal joinder and intervention rules, the Louisiana article recognised only “true” class actions (an action with a joint, common or secondary right to enforcement where the owner of the primary right does not enforce it and a class member becomes entitled to enforce it), rather than “hybrid” or “spurious” class actions recognised by Federal Rule 23 prior to the 1966 amendments.

Prior to 1961, Louisiana suits of a class nature were principally based in equity. The adoption of these articles codified the rules to be applied in future cases. Early class action, jurisprudence recognised a strict common interest requirement of the original Rule 23 “true” class action but over the years the Louisiana Supreme Court substantially liberalised the availability of class actions within district judges’ discretion, provided that each of the requirements of Federal Rule 23(b) were met and due consideration of the relationship between the parties was given.

As its class action law developed, Louisiana saw a further divergence from these limitations. Courts began to allow the class action device to be used to certify mass tort actions within judicial discretion, particularly in single-event disaster cases. This jurisprudence was later expanded to include multiple exposure cases.

However, in 1997, the Louisiana Supreme Court curbed this expansion. The court re-examined Louisiana law, taking into account recent federal Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal decisions, and decertified a multiple incident, multiple location toxic exposure case that had been certified as a class action by the district court. Considering that Louisiana’s code articles were modelled on Federal Rule 23, promulgated before the increase of mass tort actions, and with the intent to recognise only “true” class actions, the court found a certification of this nature strayed too far from legislative intent. The court directed lower courts to specifically focus on whether the plaintiff’s and class members’ injuries truly arise from a common cause, and emphasised the inappropriateness of a class action device to resolve untested or novel theories of recovery. In 1997, the legislature amended C.C.P. Article 591, which now more closely tracks Federal Rule 23. In 2021, the legislature further amended C.C.P. Article 592. 

The Louisiana Class Action code articles were originally patterned after the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 but there have been statutory and jurisprudential divergences from the original language, intent and application of Rule 23, and the rules have been amended over time. Currently, a significant difference between Federal Rule 23 and La. C.C.P. Article 591 is found in Article 591(A)(5), which legislatively requires that a class must be defined “objectively in terms of ascertainable criteria” that cannot be “satisfied if it is necessary for the court to inquire into the merits of each potential class member’s cause of action to determine whether an individual falls within the defined class”. However, in practice, they have become more similar again, as a requirement for ascertainability, to a greater or lesser extent, has been read into the application of Federal Rule 23 in most of the federal circuit courts throughout the USA.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

La. C.C.P. Articles 591–597 apply to class actions in Louisiana state courts. Article 591 and subsequent jurisprudence interpreting it primarily govern the certification of class actions. Like Federal Rule 23, Article 591 has two parts, the elements of which are largely the same as those in Rule 23.

Article 591(A) contains the threshold requirements any proposed class must satisfy for certification:

• numerosity – the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
• commonality – common questions of fact or law exist and apply to all the class members;
• typicality – claims or defences of the representative parties are typical of those of the other class members;
• adequacy – the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of all class members; and
• ascertainability – the class is defined objectively to allow the court to ascertain the identity of the class members without having to conduct mini-trials or inquire into the merits of each class member’s claims.

Article 591(B) provides additional requirements for three categories of classes. Thus, once the requirements of Article 591(A) are met, the requirements for one of the three categories of classes identified in 591(B) must also be met.

• Article 591(B)(1) focuses on suits that should be brought as a class action to avoid prejudices that may result from individual suits. Two types of prejudice are covered by 591(B)(1):
1. 591(B)(1)(a) looks to avoid prejudice to the defendant/party opposing the class due to the potential for resulting incompatible standards of conduct from individual actions – an example of this type of class is a trespass claim brought by multiple landowners against the same defendant that could subject the defendant to incompatible standards regarding his or her right to use the land if individual decisions are sought; and
2. 591(B)(1)(b) looks to avoid prejudice to other class members and is appropriate where individual actions would impair or impede the ability of other similarly situated individuals to protect their interests – an example here is a situation where many individuals have claims against a limited or common fund, such as an insurance policy.

Classes certified pursuant to Article 591(B)(1) are mandatory classes. There are no opt-outs.

• Article 591(B)(2) concerns injunctive or declaratory relief (the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole). Employment discrimination claims are an example of a 591(B)(2) class, where the goal is to change the defendant’s conduct, as opposed to obtaining monetary damages. A class certified under Article 591(B)(2) is also a mandatory class, but in this instance, notice to class members is not necessary.
• Article 591(B)(3) is a damages class, where class members seek monetary damages as the result of a defendant’s conduct. The requirements for a monetary class focus on manageability – ie, questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The article identifies a number of factors pertinent to this requirement:
1. the interest of the members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defence of separate actions;
2. the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class;
3. the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation in the particular forum;
4. the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action;
5. the practical ability of individual class members to pursue their claims without class certification; and
6. the extent to which the relief plausibly demanded on behalf of or against the class, including the vindication of such public policies or legal rights as may be implicated, justifies the costs and burdens of class litigation.

Notice of class certification and an opportunity to opt-out are requirements of an Article 591(B)(3) class. In addition, a class may be certified for settlement purposes pursuant to Article 591(B)(3), even if the requirements of that subsection are not otherwise met.

La C.C.P. Article 591, et seq, governs the ability to use the class action procedure in Louisiana state courts for civil disputes that meet the criteria, other than those to which the courts or the legislature specifically do not allow private causes of action or class action treatment such as the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA). Class actions under LUTPA are limited to enforcement actions brought by the Louisiana Attorney General for restitutionary recovery or injunctive relief. Another factor limiting consumer class actions is the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), which sets forth the “exclusive theories of liability for manufacturers for damages caused by their products” (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 51:1409). Louisiana courts largely agree that the LPLA subsumes all LUTPA claims involving products liability. However, the LPLA exclusivity provision does not expressly preclude class actions for redhibition claims for economic losses relating to a product.

The class action procedure is used in many areas of the law such as mass torts, environmental damage, securities, consumer protection, false or fraudulent advertising, design defects, antitrust, data breaches, pharmaceuticals, and digital and online privacy, among others.

There is no statutory definition of “class actions” in Louisiana. However, Louisiana courts have defined a “class action” as a nontraditional litigation procedure that permits a representative with typical claims to sue or defend on behalf of, and stand in judgment for, a class of similarly situated persons when the question is one of common interest to persons so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court. It is an alternative procedural device to the general rule for litigation to be conducted by and on behalf of individually named parties, and its purpose and intent is to adjudicate and obtain res judicata effect on all common issues applicable to persons who bring the action, as well as to all others similarly situated.

Louisiana also recognises settlement class actions, which must meet the same criteria in Article 591 other than the predominance and superiority requirements. Class notice is given to all class members of the proposed settlement class, and if approved the settlement is applicable to all class members who do not formally exclude themselves the settlement.

Unlike some states that have courts specifically designed to hear class actions and other complex matters, a class action can be brought in any Louisiana state district court of proper jurisdiction and venue. An action brought on behalf of a class must be brought in a parish of proper venue as to the defendant. La C.C.P. Article 591 applies to all cases brought in any state court in Louisiana with common facts and legal issues.

However, in 2005, the US Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which significantly expanded federal jurisdiction over class actions, leaving only small, localised classes in state court. Thus, even if jurisdiction and venue are proper in state court as to all parties, most cases filed as class actions cases can be removed from state court to federal court. Thereafter, the federal rules of civil procedure apply to the action. State substantive law will continue to apply to the same extent as before the removal to federal court.

Class actions can also be filed directly in US federal courts in Louisiana if federal jurisdiction is available under CAFA, the rules of diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. Federal Rule 23 applies to those cases.

A class action can be brought in Louisiana state district court by filing a petition alleging facts that support the cause(s) of action, that those facts are common to a sufficiently numerous group of people and that each of the requisites for C.C.P. Article 591 can be met. Once the petition is filed and the parties are served, the plaintiff is required to file a motion for class certification within 90 days, in which further information supporting the plaintiff’s allegations are set forth and are often supported by affidavits and/or declarations of the attorney bringing the case and/or experts who opine that the case is best litigated as a class action. Discovery as to class issues in the case is allowed before the class hearing. Opponents of the class action will file opposition papers, and after the briefing is complete, the court will hold a hearing to determine if the class should be certified, which may include expert testimony. A party opposing the order granting or denying class certification has a right to take a direct appeal to the governing appellate court challenging the decision.

Louisiana has five different circuit courts of appeal among which the district courts are divided regionally, and each appellate court is governed by the Louisiana Supreme Court. There can be differences in interpretation among each circuit as case law develops but Article 591, et seq, and the Louisiana Supreme Court’s interpretation of its meaning is to be applied throughout the state. Any significant difference among the circuit courts will ultimately be resolved by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

A class action is a procedural mechanism that enlarges no substantive rights. Accordingly, to bring any action, regardless of class allegations, a plaintiff must first meet the standing requirements in the relevant jurisdiction. In federal court, a plaintiff must be able to plausibly allege that they suffered an actual injury (versus a hypothetical injury) that is fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant, and that the court’s decision in the matter is likely to remedy. Additionally, a class representative must also have first-hand knowledge or experience of the conduct at issue; a sufficient stake or interest in the litigation such that they will participate conscientiously; claims or defences that are typical of and not antagonistic to the claims of the class members so that they can fairly and adequately protect the other members of the class; and freedom from any conflicts that would affect any outcome to the class.

In Louisiana state court, however, the threshold standing requirement (termed “a right of action”) is slightly different: an action can only be brought by someone who has a real and actual interest that he or she asserts in the action. Where a plaintiff’s right of action is challenged, a Louisiana court will determine whether the plaintiff belongs to a particular class to which the law grants a remedy for the particular harm alleged in the plaintiff's petition.

A class must be defined so that class membership can be easily ascertained by using objective criteria without resorting to extensive fact-finding to determine whether the person is included in the class. If class membership is not evident from the class definition itself, it can often be objectively determined based on public records or records held by the class members or the defendant. In class actions involving environmental concerns, a geographical boundary is often used to determine who was likely harmed and should be included in the class.

After certification of a class under La C.C.P. Article 591 (B)(3), the best practicable notice is required to be given to class members including individual notice when the class members can be identified through reasonable effort. This notice must be given promptly after certification with ample time for a class member to exclude themselves prior to the trial on common issues in the case. A class member can exclude themselves typically by sending in a form available with the class notice or otherwise follow the instructions given in the notice. The proponents of the class action usually bear the cost of the notice.

Under Louisiana’s liberal joinder rules, multiple parties can be joined in order to gain efficiencies through common discovery and motion practice while still preserving an individual’s right to a specific determination on the merits of their case or the damages they believe are due to them. If a class is certified, there should be no need for joinder of other plaintiffs as the class representative will represent all interests.

District courts in Louisiana generally have broad discretion and authority to create management tools to streamline a case or create schedules that are more suited for the complex nature of a class action or multi-party suit. Specifically, under C.C.P. Article 592(E)(5), courts are given the authority to issue case management orders governing discovery and other matters affecting the order of proceedings. Some judges have their own rules or case management orders that they implement, but many courts are receptive to the suggestions of the parties as to case management practices, and encourage the parties to work together to create a reasonable schedule that provides sufficient time for discovery and motion practice without undue delay.

Article 592(D) specifically provides that a Louisiana court can certify a class as to a specific issue, or divide a class into sub-classes to be treated as a class if they meet the requirements or Article 591. Test cases or “bellwether” trials are frequently used in multi-district litigation (MDLs) for personal injury suits in state or federal courts, but a Louisiana class-wide trial cannot be held that is based on the individual proof, causation or damages of a particular class member.

Because of the multiple procedural protections that come with class actions, and pre-certification and post-certification discovery, this process can add months or even years to the typical timeframe of an individual case. This additional time to reach resolution is balanced by the efficiencies created by having all claims determined in one case. Often, months are spent drafting the appropriate case management order, on the limits of pre-certification discovery and the briefing of class certification. Having a case management order in place with a reasonable trial date is an effective way to keep all parties and the court on an appropriate schedule and can further aid in pre-trial resolution of the case.

As with other civil actions, defendants in class actions have the right to file dispositive motions (called “exceptions” in Louisiana) prior to answering the petition, which can result in dismissal of the case before class certification is determined. However, in many instances discovery begins at least in part, so that class certification can be determined quickly if the case is to proceed. Given liberal pleading requirements at the early stages of a case, many cases survive this early pleadings challenge and move towards limited class discovery and class certification motion practice.

In federal courts in Louisiana, courts may issue a Lone Pine order as a case management tool to handle complex class issues and ease discovery burdens. Such orders are issued under the wide discretion afforded to district judges under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 for the management of discovery. Typically, Lone Pine orders require plaintiffs to make a prima facie showing of causation, injury or exposure by a date certain – or face dismissal. Lone Pine orders can be issued prior to discovery to define the scope or later in litigation in furtherance of settlement negotiations.

In Louisiana, class actions are typically funded by the attorneys bringing the action, who pays for all costs in the case. These cases are brought on a contingency-fee contract basis with the representative clients, and the clients typically have no obligation to reimburse counsel. In exchange, a client will be required to pay a percentage of the recovery to counsel, the amount of which may depend on the stage of the case, as well as the case costs expended in the case. In the class action context, after a successful class verdict or class settlement, the attorneys who have been appointed by the court to represent the class can apply for the recovery of reasonable fees and costs from the common fund created by their efforts. These fees and costs must be approved by the court after notice has been given to the class.

Litigation funding is increasingly available throughout the USA, and with that increase has come regulation. Louisiana has recently enacted laws that limit litigation funding and require disclosure of information about such funding to the Louisiana Attorney General. Given the recent legislative developments, these laws and their application should be thoroughly reviewed prior to entering into any agreement that involves litigation funding of a civil action in Louisiana.

Full discovery is allowed in class actions in Louisiana, as elsewhere in the USA, and pre-certification discovery (class discovery) and post-certification discovery (merits discovery) are specifically provided for in Louisiana class actions under Article 592. However, given the overlap between class and merits discovery, where to draw the line can be a crucial issue, and it is often left to the court to resolve.

Louisiana permits a broad scope of discovery. Specifically, La. Code C.C.P. Article 1422 permits parties to obtain any non-privileged information relevant to the subject matter of the action, or that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Trial courts accordingly have expansive discretion in regulating discovery and may limit or tailor discovery through protective orders to prevent undue burden or oppression. In general, Louisiana’s discovery framework mirrors federal practice but does not mandate automatic pretrial disclosures and continues to employ an expansive relevancy standard. In class actions, Article 592 ensures the parties a reasonable opportunity to obtain discovery on class certification issues (including expert evidence) before the certification hearing.

Experts are frequently used at the class certification stage to opine on whether the requirements for class certification can be met. Those experts are usually required to provide pre-trial and trial disclosures or expert reports. The experts can be deposed and can be subject to a pre-certification hearing to test their qualifications and methodologies in the same manner as they would be prior to trial. If qualified, their testimony can be used to support or oppose class certification. If the class is certified and set for trial, additional expert reports may be served, experts deposed, and qualification and methodologies tested to determine whether they may testify to a jury on the merits of the case at trial, with each proceeding governed by Louisiana civil procedure rules and evidentiary rules.

Typical rules of attorney-client privilege apply to the information produced in discovery, with strong protections given to confidences shared with the attorney and to the attorney’s work product. While expert reports and extensive documentation can be required of an expert, absent exceptional circumstances a draft expert report does not have to be produced to the opposing party. However, facts and data upon which the expert relied or considered, including information coming from counsel or whether experts considered alternative approaches, are fair game for inquiry of the expert by the opposing party.

With few exceptions, Louisiana law permits class action plaintiffs to seek the full array of remedies that would be available in individual suits. This includes monetary damages to compensate for injuries or losses suffered by class members. Class actions can aggregate claims for general and special damages (eg, medical bills, lost wages or other quantifiable economic losses) on behalf of all class members, even if individual damage amounts vary. Each class member is entitled to recover their proven compensatory damages, and the class mechanism ensures these individual damage claims are resolved together.

Louisiana class actions also support claims for equitable relief on a class-wide basis. If a defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to a class, the court may grant class-wide injunctive relief or declaratory judgments benefitting the entire class. For example, a class of plaintiffs can jointly seek an injunction to halt unlawful practices affecting all class members, or a declaratory ruling to establish the parties’ rights under a statute or contract that uniformly impacts the class. The Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure expressly contemplates such class actions for injunctive or declaratory relief, mirroring the approach of Federal Rule 23.

In addition, Article 595 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure expressly allows courts to award the representative plaintiffs their litigation expenses, including attorney fees, out of a common fund or recovery obtained for the class.

However, Louisiana imposes important limitations on punitive or exemplary damages in civil litigation, including class actions. Punitive and exemplary damages are generally unavailable under Louisiana’s civilian tradition unless expressly authorised by statute. Civil penalties that function as punishment (such as statutory fines or multiplied damages) are treated similarly and may be recovered only when a statute explicitly allows private plaintiffs to seek those penalties.

Many courts require parties, through their local rules or during the case management process, to engage in informal or formal mechanisms to resolve class actions prior to extensive litigation or trial. This is typically done through a non-binding mediation led by a private mediator experienced in complex litigation and the issues involved in the particular case.

A final judgment on the merits in a Louisiana class action is binding on all members of the certified class, regardless of whether each member was individually named or present in court. La. C.C.P. Article 597 explicitly provides that a definitive class action judgment concludes all members of the class, whether joined in the action or not, as long as the class representatives fairly and adequately represented the class. Thus, the judgment has res judicata effect for the entire class, resolving the common issues and claims for all class members.

Importantly, class members who have been given proper notice of the class action and a right to exclude themselves will not be bound if they choose to exclude themselves or “opt out” from the settlement in a timely manner. For Louisiana class actions seeking money damages, analogous to Federal Rule 23(b)(3) classes, constitutional due process requires that absent class members receive notice and an opportunity to opt out of the class before judgment. Any members who validly opt out are excluded from the class and not affected by the final judgment. Otherwise, all persons fitting the class definition and not opting out are treated as parties to the judgment.

After the court renders a final judgment in a class action, no special enforcement mechanism is required beyond the ordinary procedures that apply to any civil judgment. For example, if the judgment awards monetary relief, the defendant is legally obligated to pay, and the class representatives, through class counsel, can use standard enforcement tools such as executing on the judgment or establishing a claims process to ensure class members receive the relief. If the judgment grants injunctive or declaratory relief, it binds the defendant to the same extent as any court order, and the court can supervise compliance using its usual powers.

Adhering to standards set by the Louisiana Supreme Court and influenced by federal jurisprudence, more recently Louisiana courts have been applying a rigourous analysis in class certification decisions. The state’s high court has made it clear that trial courts must carefully ensure every requirement of Article 591 is satisfied before a class is certified, often necessitating examination of the merits insofar as they overlap with certification issues. For example, in a recent class action seeking tuition refunds after universities shifted to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, a Louisiana appellate court reversed a trial court’s class certification, reasoning that a multitude of individualised inquiries would be needed to determine the defendant’s liability as to each student plaintiff. The outcome in the case suggests a jurisprudential policy not to permit class actions to proceed unless the class is clearly cohesive and the statutory criteria are satisfied after rigourous judicial scrutiny.

Significant federal developments, including CAFA, which continues to funnel many large multi-state class suits into federal court, and recent US Supreme Court decisions (such as those enforcing arbitration clauses to bar class claims and tightening standing for class members) inevitably influence Louisiana practitioners.

Louisiana has seen recent legislative efforts to reshape class action practice. In 2024, the legislature approved a new litigation financing disclosure law to curb undisclosed third-party funding of lawsuits. This law imposes additional transparency in all civil cases, including class actions, by requiring that any third-party litigation financing agreements be disclosed. It bars foreign or outside funders from controlling litigation, a safeguard ostensibly aimed at preventing manipulation of class suits.

In 2021, the Louisiana legislature overhauled the Code of Civil Procedure’s class-certification provisions, with input from the Louisiana State Law Institute. Under the updated Article 592, a plaintiff seeking class treatment must move for certification within a fixed time, generally within 90 days of the responsive pleadings, or else the court may strike the class allegations absent a showing of good cause. Courts are prohibited from certifying a class action until all named defendants have been served and parties have had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery on certification issues. The law further codified that the proponent of the class bears the burden of proving all the prerequisites of Louisiana’s class action rule; and it now requires courts to issue written findings of fact and reasons when ruling on class certification, if requested in a timely manner. A party can take an immediate appeal as of right from an order granting or denying class certification, ensuring prompt appellate scrutiny of such decisions.

More recently, in 2025 the legislature passed House Bill 416, which would prohibit class action lawsuits against the Louisiana Department of Revenue and its Office of Debt Recovery in matters related to tax administration. This measure forecloses tax refund or tax policy challenges from being pursued as class actions against the state’s revenue agency, reflecting a policy choice to channel such disputes into individual claims or other procedures.

The prevailing trend within Louisiana is a state-driven calibration of class action policy. Through amendments to its class certification provisions, targeted legislation such as new funding disclosure requirements, limits on certain public-sector class suits and recent state-court jurisprudence, Louisiana is actively shaping how and when class actions can be utilised while attempting to balance efficient collective redress with the need to prevent over-broad class litigation.