La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 12:1502 (2026)

Actions against persons who control business organizations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§1502. Actions against persons who control business organizations

           A. The provisions of this Section shall apply to all business organizations formed under the laws of this state and shall be applicable to actions against any officer, director, shareholder, member, manager, general partner, limited partner, managing partner, or other person similarly situated. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to actions governed by R.S. 12:1-622, 1-833, 1-1407, or 1328(C).

           B. The term "business organization" includes any entity formed under the laws of this state engaged in any trade, occupation, profession, or other commercial activity including but not limited to professions licensed by a state or other governmental agency. This Section shall apply without limitation to corporations, incorporated or unincorporated associations, partnerships, limited liability partnerships, partnerships in commendam, limited liability companies, or cooperative associations or other entities formed under the laws of this state.

           C. No action for damages against any person described in Subsection A of this Section for an unlawful distribution, return of an unlawful distribution, or for breach of fiduciary duty, including without limitation an action for gross negligence, but excluding any action covered by the provisions of Subsection D of this Section, shall be brought unless it is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue within one year from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date that the alleged act, omission, or neglect is discovered or should have been discovered, but in no event shall an action covered by the provisions of this Subsection be brought more than three years from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect.

           D. No action for damages against any person listed in Subsection A of this Section for intentional tortious misconduct, or for an intentional breach of a duty of loyalty, or for an intentional unlawful distribution, or for acts or omissions in bad faith, or involving fraud, or a knowing and intentional violation of law, shall be brought unless it is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue within two years from the date of the alleged act or omission, or within two years from the date the alleged act or omission is discovered or should have been discovered, but in no event shall an action covered by the provisions of this Subsection be brought more than three years from the date of the alleged act or omission.

           E. The time limitations provided in this Section shall not be subject to suspension on any grounds or interruption except by timely suit filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue.

           F. This Section shall be applied both retrospectively and prospectively as to claims to which a vested right has not attached; however, as to any alleged act, omission, or neglect for which the time period for bringing an action would otherwise be shortened by Subsection C of this Section, such action shall be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue on or before the earlier of the end of the time period for bringing such action prior to June 28, 2001, or September 1, 2002. Any claim or alleged act or omission for which the time period for bringing an action would otherwise be shortened by Subsection D of this Section shall be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue on or before the earlier of the end of the time period for bringing such action prior to June 28, 2001, or September 1, 2002, in any case without regard to the date of discovery of the alleged act or omission.

           Added by Acts 2001, No. 1126, §1, eff. June 28, 2001; Acts 2014, No. 328, §1, eff. January 1, 2015.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Wooley v. Lucksinger, 14 So. 3d 311 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wooley v. Lucksinger, 14 So. 3d 311 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 24× “R.S. 12:1502. In particular, Health Net asserts that "[a]ll of the Receivers' claims against Health Net arise out of acts or omissions that occurred in connection with the April 30, 1999 sale of the three HMOs to AmCareco," and "[t]he first petition was not filed until June 30,…”
Hill v. TMR Expl., Inc., 223 So. 3d 556 (La. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 28× “R.S. 12:1502. 8 The plaintiffs assert that the *561 trial court erred in the following 17respects: in applying La.”
Robert v. Robert Mgmt. Co., 164 So. 3d 922 (La. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 17× “R.S. 12:1502. The Plaintiffs’ suit, in part, alleges that the Defendants intentionally breached fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiffs by utilizing a new limited liability company to lease and open a grocery store, inter alia, the Claiborne Avenue Store, without their…”
Robert v. Robert Mgmt. Co., 82 So. 3d 396 (La. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 13× “R.S. 12:1502 is not a peremptive statute.”
Suhren v. Gibert, 55 So. 3d 941 (La. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 17× “R.S. 12:1502. The motion for summary judgment of Mr.”
Khoobehi Props., LLC v. Baronne Dev. No. 2, L.L.C., 216 So. 3d 287 (La. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “R.S. 12:1502, Khoobehi Properties’ claims pre-dating November 25, 2010, are per-empted, and that Khoobehi Properties has no cause of action for any acts allegedly occurring after June 17, 2013, the date of the sale.”
Dhaliwal v. Dhaliwal, 124 So. 3d 470 (La. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “R.S. 12:1502 is not subject to suspension or interruption except by timely filing suit.”
Salemi v. TMR Expl., Inc., 224 So. 3d 14 (La. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 28× “R.S. 12:1502 in peremptory fashion; applying the provisions of La.”
Coleman v. Querbes Co. No. 1, 218 So. 3d 665 (La. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “R.S. 12:1502 C. The court then found that by the plaintiffs’ own pleading (fourth supplemental and amending petition), the same incidents constituting the claim of breach and bad-faith breach of the Operating Agreement were the same as those outlined in the preceding paragraph…”
Capital Mgmt. Consultants, Inc. v. Duhon, 227 So. 3d 839 (La. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “| ¡¡Plaintiffs appeal a judgment that held LSA-R.S. 12:1502 to be the controlling prescriptive/peremptive period as to one of the co-defendants, thereby limiting claims against that co-defendant to a period of three years.”
Gutierrez v. Baldridge, 65 So. 3d 251 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “R.S. 12:1502, which fixes a one-year prescriptive period for claims against any officer, director, shareholder, member, manager, general partner, limited partner, managing partner, or other person similarly situated for an unlawful distribution, return of an unlawful…”
Hawkins v. Meridian Res. & Expl. LLC, 236 So. 3d 610 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “R.S. 12:1502 applied to bar the plaintiffs' non-accounting claims.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 12:1502(A): 5 cases
Hill v. TMR Expl., Inc., 223 So. 3d 556 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “R.S. 12:1502. 8 The plaintiffs assert that the *561 trial court erred in the following 17respects: in applying La.”
Salemi v. TMR Expl., Inc., 224 So. 3d 14 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “R.S. 12:1502 in peremptory fashion; applying the provisions of La.”
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co of Am. v. Broussard (W.D. La. 2023).
Brown & Root Indus. Servs., LLC v. Brown (M.D. La. 2024).
West River Landing, LLC v. Dewey Weaver, Jr. (La. Ct. App. 2026).
La. Rev. Stat. § 12:1502(B): 4 cases
Wooley v. Lucksinger, 14 So. 3d 311 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 12:1502. In particular, Health Net asserts that "[a]ll of the Receivers' claims against Health Net arise out of acts or omissions that occurred in connection with the April 30, 1999 sale of the three HMOs to AmCareco," and "[t]he first petition was not filed until June 30,…”
Hill v. TMR Expl., Inc., 223 So. 3d 556 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “R.S. 12:1502. 8 The plaintiffs assert that the *561 trial court erred in the following 17respects: in applying La.”
Salemi v. TMR Expl., Inc., 224 So. 3d 14 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “R.S. 12:1502 in peremptory fashion; applying the provisions of La.”
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co of Am. v. Broussard (W.D. La. 2023).
La. Rev. Stat. § 12:1502(C): 6 cases
Brown v. Schreiner, 81 So. 3d 705 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
West River Landing, LLC v. Dewey Weaver, Jr. (La. Ct. App. 2026).
Gail B. Link, Adm'r of the Est. of Michael P. Link v. Total Imaging Concepts, Inc. (La. Ct. App. 2026).
Omni Energy Servs. Corp. v. Rhyne, 149 So. 3d 1282 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
Schott v. Massengale (M.D. La. 2019).
La. Rev. Stat. § 12:1502(D): 9 cases
Hill v. TMR Expl., Inc., 223 So. 3d 556 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “R.S. 12:1502. 8 The plaintiffs assert that the *561 trial court erred in the following 17respects: in applying La.”
Dhaliwal v. Dhaliwal, 124 So. 3d 470 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 12:1502 is not subject to suspension or interruption except by timely filing suit.”
Salemi v. TMR Expl., Inc., 224 So. 3d 14 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “R.S. 12:1502 in peremptory fashion; applying the provisions of La.”
In re Poteet, 238 So. 3d 1020 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co of Am. v. Broussard (W.D. La. 2023).
La. Rev. Stat. § 12:1502(E): 4 cases
Robert v. Robert Mgmt. Co., 164 So. 3d 922 (La. Ct. App. 2015). “R.S. 12:1502. The Plaintiffs’ suit, in part, alleges that the Defendants intentionally breached fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiffs by utilizing a new limited liability company to lease and open a grocery store, inter alia, the Claiborne Avenue Store, without their…”
Dhaliwal v. Dhaliwal, 124 So. 3d 470 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 12:1502 is not subject to suspension or interruption except by timely filing suit.”
Suhren v. Gibert, 55 So. 3d 941 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “R.S. 12:1502. The motion for summary judgment of Mr.”
Gail B. Link, Adm'r of the Est. of Michael P. Link v. Total Imaging Concepts, Inc. (La. Ct. App. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.