Background
Dawauan Harris brought claims against Michael Thornhill and Stupp Bros., Inc. d/b/a Stupp Corporation in Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court. Stupp Coatings, LLC, which was also a defendant, filed a peremptory exception of prescription asserting that Harris’s claims against it were untimely.
On April 10, 2026, the trial court overruled Stupp Coatings’ prescription exception. Stupp Bros. and Stupp Coatings sought supervisory review from the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit granted the writ in part and reversed the portion of the trial court’s judgment that overruled Stupp Coatings’ exception of prescription. Because the claims were prescribed on their face, Harris bore the burden of proving that prescription had been interrupted or suspended, and the court held that he failed to carry that burden.
The court granted the exception and dismissed Harris’s claims against Stupp Coatings, LLC. It denied the writ in all other respects, leaving the remainder of the challenged ruling undisturbed.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing interruption or suspension when a claim is prescribed on its face.
- Harris failed to establish interruption or suspension of prescription for his claims against Stupp Coatings.
- The appellate court dismissed only the claims against Stupp Coatings and denied all other requested writ relief.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Louisiana’s burden-shifting rule for facially prescribed claims: once untimeliness appears from the pleadings, the plaintiff must prove a basis for avoiding prescription.
It also illustrates the targeted nature of supervisory review. The First Circuit corrected the trial court’s prescription ruling as to Stupp Coatings without granting the applicants relief on the remaining issues presented.