Riley v. Keegan

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Riley v. Keegan

171 So. 3d 247, 2015 La. LEXIS 1516, 2015 WL 4601132

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJuly 22, 2015

DocketNo. 2015-CC-1388

StatusPublished

This text of 171 So. 3d 247 (Riley v. Keegan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Riley v. Keegan, 171 So. 3d 247, 2015 La. LEXIS 1516, 2015 WL 4601132 (La. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

HUGHES, J., would deny the writ.

Granted. The clear wording of La.Code Civ. P. art. 592(A)(1) requires that a motion to certify the action as a class action must be filed “within ninety days after service on all adverse parties of the initial [248]*248pleading.... It is undisputed plaintiffs failed to file their motion to certify within this time. Further, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the pending exceptions prevented them from filing their motion to certify timely or requesting an extension of time to file. Complexity of litigation alone does not constitute good cause. Under these circumstances, the district court erred in finding plaintiffs demonstrated good cause for their failure to request certification timely.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and relator’s motion to dismiss the demand for class certification is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

HUGHES, J., would deny the writ.

Granted. The clear wording of La.Code Civ. P. art. 592(A)(1) requires that a motion to certify the action as a class action must be filed “within ninety days after service on all adverse parties of the initial [248]*248pleading.... It is undisputed plaintiffs failed to file their motion to certify within this time. Further, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the pending exceptions prevented them from filing their motion to certify timely or requesting an extension of time to file. Complexity of litigation alone does not constitute good cause. Under these circumstances, the district court erred in finding plaintiffs demonstrated good cause for their failure to request certification timely.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and relator’s motion to dismiss the demand for class certification is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 So. 3d 247, 2015 La. LEXIS 1516, 2015 WL 4601132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-keegan-la-2015.