Keogh Cox Obtains Appellate Victory in Denial of Class Certification

On April 20, 2010, BP's Deepwater Horizon rig exploded at a cost of eleven lives. What followed was the largest accidental marine oil spill in history. In the aftermath, BP looked for a solution, ostensibly to cap its exposure and address a swirling PR disaster. BP began to actively negotiate a settlement.

On March 2, 2012, BP agreed to a detailed settlement which set forth specific criteria for recovery under the Fund created by the Agreement. In August of that year, BP asked U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to approve the settlement. The Agreement was approved.

Despite championing the settlement, BP later filed a lawsuit seeking to set aside the settlement, unless it was interpreted as suggested by BP. BP's challenges were rejected by the Federal District Court. Thereafter, the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling in a 2-to-1 decision. BP then applied for a Petition of Writ for Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in a final challenge to the settlement.

About BP's legal maneuvers, Samuel Issacharoff, a New York University Law Professor, said the following: "This case is about a contract that BP signed that it now wishes it hadn't."

One of BP's primary complaints was that, in effect, the settlement could be interpreted to provide recovery for individuals or businesses who could not show a direct link between a financial downturn and the spill. In response, it was stated that the settlement was crafted to use objective measures to gauge whether losses are recoverable.

On December 8, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected BP's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. As such, the settlement agreement first proposed by BP will remain in place. No higher court remains.

Under the Agreement, potential claimants have 6 months from the Supreme Court's Petition denial to file claims.

Keogh Cox attorneys Andrew Blanchfield, Chris Jones, and Chelsea Payne successfully defeated class certification in an action students brought to recover a partial refund of tuition and fees they claim they were owed after in-person classes were converted to remote learning because of the COVID-19 global pandemic. See Miazza v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.

In 2021, plaintiffs Taylor Gunter and Michael Miazza filed a lawsuit seeking a partial refund of the tuition they paid to LSU for Spring 2020 classes. They alleged that they were entitled to a partial refund of tuition and certain fees because in-person classes were cancelled in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In lieu of in-person classes, remote learning went into effect after spring break, from March 30, 2020 through the end of the spring semester.

In addition to their own claims for partial refunds, the plaintiffs tried to bring the case as a class action and moved to certify a class defined as: “All students who, as of March 13, 2020, were enrolled at Louisiana State University's main campus in Baton Rouge who paid Tuition and/or Fees for the Spring 2020 semester, or on whose behalf such payment was made.”

After the completion of discovery for class certification, and after the dismissal of Plaintiff Michael Miazza’s claim, Plaintiff Taylor Gunter filed a Motion for Class Certification. After hearing, the Trial Court certified the class as alleged, finding all the requirements for class certification set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 591 were satisfied. LSU appealed the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

The First Circuit reversed the Trial Court’s judgment and found the Plaintiff failed to satisfy all of the requirements for class certification. After conducting a rigorous analysis of the class certification requirements, the Court concluded that “a multitude of individualized inquiries and proof make up the liability and damages issues essential to the putative plaintiffs’ implied contract claims.” The Court identified some of these “individualized inquiries” as follows:

• which representations in each school’s or college’s catalogs, bulletins, and website materials did the putative plaintiff rely upon in developing his or her expectation and what particular facilities and on-campus opportunities did a putative plaintiff expect to utilize;

• whether the putative plaintiff has historically utilized on-campus facilities and opportunities; which facilities and/or on-campus opportunities, if any, were necessary for a particular school's or college's course completion;

• whether a putative plaintiff was satisfied with the online instruction, course credits received, and grading options provided; and

• whether a putative plaintiff actually suffered any financial loss, mindful of each student’s particular situation.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the record lacked sufficient evidence to support findings of offers and acceptances, where were necessary (1) to establish meetings of the mind and (2) conclude each putative plaintiff and LSU consented to an implied contract. Any determination of liability for an implied contract also is dependent upon proof of facts individual to each putative class member. Therefore, the class would degenerate into a series of individual trials.

The First Circuit concluded that certification of the case as a class action was an abuse of discretion. It reversed the Trial Court’s judgment and decertified the matter. Plaintiff filed a Writ Application with the Louisiana Supreme Court. On January 14, 2025, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s Writ Application, finally resolving the class certification issue. As a result, Plaintiff cannot pursue class certification, but rather may only pursue her own individual claim.

References:

Miazza v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2023-1194 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/9/24), 394 So.3d 874, writ denied, 2025 WL 87255 (La. 1/14/25).

Until recently, tort claims in Louisiana were subject to a one-year prescriptive period.* In Carollo v. Tulane Univ., the plaintiff’s claim was subject to that one-year prescriptive period, but she filed her suit more than one year after she was injured. Thus, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed as prescribed. In so holding, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that her execution of a waiver form prevented her from timely filing suit for her alleged injuries.

The plaintiff was a member of Tulane’s Swim and Dive Team. As a team member, she signed Tulane’s Concussion Education Form, which concluded with the following statement: “I understand that this release means that, among other things, I am giving up my right to sue the institution for any such losses, damages, injury, or costs that I may incur.” Plaintiff sustained a concussion during practice on January 9, 2021. In her Petition, she alleged she discovered the full extent of her injuries on August 5, 2021. However, she did not file suit until February 17, 2023, which was beyond the one-year prescription period.

When a claim is prescribed on the face of the petition, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove her claim is not prescribed. Carollo first argued (1) the Concussion Education Form was a contract, (2) her claim arose from that contract, and (3) personal claims under contracts should be subject to a ten-year prescriptive period under La. C.C. art. 3499. The court rejected this argument because the concussion form did not meet the requirements for a valid contract under Louisiana law.

The plaintiff then argued that the doctrine of contra non valentem should apply. This doctrine provides “prescription does not run against one who is ignorant of the facts upon which their cause of action is based and applies an exception to the statutory prescriptive period where in fact and for good cause a plaintiff is unable to exercise his cause of action when it accrues.”

Contra non valentem can apply when there is some condition coupled with a contract that prevented the plaintiff from filing suit. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments asserting this theory. Even if Carollo could establish a contract with Tulane under the concussion form, she could not point to any physical, mental, or procedural condition that prevented her from investigating her tort claims and filing suit against it.

Contra non valentem can also apply when the defendant does some act effectually to prevent the plaintiff from availing herself from her cause of action. The plaintiff argued that she was forced to sign the concussion form as a member of the Swim and Dive Team and that the form prevented her from filing suit within the prescriptive period. The court also rejected this argument, holding the plaintiff “knew about her concussion related injuries but did not perform her due diligence within the prescriptive period to determine whether she could file suit.”

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s execution of a waiver form stating she agreed not to sue the defendant for injuries could not interrupt prescription for the plaintiff’s claim.

*La. C.C. art. 3493.1, which went into effect on July 1, 2024, now provides delictual actions/tort claims are subject to a liberative prescription of two years.

References:

Carollo v. Tulane Univ., 2024-0038 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/9/25), --- So.3d ---, 2025 WL 52557.