Provides relative to court costs in suits involving the state and state agencies in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. (2/3-CA7s2.1(A)) (8/1/25) (OR INCREASE GF EX See Note)
Summary
SB 91 narrows how Louisiana’s general court-cost deferral rules apply in suits filed in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Under current law, the state, political subdivisions, and certain state-related entities may temporarily defer court costs in litigation, with those costs later recoverable from an opposing party if the state prevails. This bill would limit that deferral in the 19th JDC to the state and the departments listed in R.S. 36:4(A), rather than the broader set of governmental entities covered elsewhere in law.
The bill also requires the state and those listed departments to deposit a $200 advance filing fee with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court when filing covered suits. It further preserves the attorney general’s authority to bring suits to protect the state’s interests without posting security for costs or advance costs, while adding a collection mechanism that allows unpaid deferred costs to be referred to the office of debt recovery if not paid within 30 days after a final judgment.
Impact
SB 91 amends R.S. 13:4521 and 5036 and adds a new subsection to specifically tailor court-cost deferral rules for litigation in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. In practical terms, it reduces the range of governmental entities that can use temporary cost deferral in that court, requires a $200 advance filing fee from the state and its executive departments, and authorizes debt-recovery collection of unpaid deferred costs. The bill affects the state, its departments, clerks of court, and parties opposing the state in 19th JDC litigation.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure appears administrative and fiscal in nature, aimed at tightening court-cost procedures and ensuring some upfront payment and later collection of costs in a specific district court. Because no discussion is provided, sentiment cannot be reliably characterized beyond the bill’s procedural focus.
Contention
The main policy tension is between limiting the state’s broad ability to defer court costs and preserving its litigation privileges. Potentially affected parties include state agencies that are not listed in R.S. 36:4(A), other governmental entities that currently benefit from deferral rules, and litigants opposing the state in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. The $200 advance filing fee and the narrowed scope of deferral may be viewed as increasing administrative and financial burdens on state litigation, while supporters would likely see the change as a way to standardize costs and improve collection.