Louisiana Long Arm Statute: Jurisdiction Over Non-Residents

The Louisiana long arm statute, found at La. R.S. 13:3201, gives Louisiana courts the power to hear lawsuits against people and businesses located outside the state whenever the defendant has a meaningful connection to Louisiana. The statute lists eight specific categories of activity that can trigger jurisdiction, and a catch-all provision extends that reach to the outer limits of what the U.S. Constitution allows.¹ Because the Louisiana Supreme Court reads the statute as coextensive with constitutional due process, every jurisdictional fight ultimately turns on a single question: would hauling this defendant into a Louisiana courtroom violate fundamental fairness?

What Activities Subject a Non-Resident to Louisiana Jurisdiction

Section 3201(A) sets out eight categories of conduct that can pull a non-resident into a Louisiana court, provided the lawsuit itself arises from that conduct:²

Transacting any business in the state, whether through a single deal or an ongoing relationship.
Contracting to supply services or goods in Louisiana, even if the contract was signed elsewhere.
Causing injury or damage through a wrongful act committed in Louisiana.
Causing injury in Louisiana through conduct performed elsewhere, if the defendant regularly does or solicits business here or derives revenue from goods or services consumed in the state.
Owning or possessing an interest in immovable property located in Louisiana.
Failing to support a child, parent, spouse, or former spouse who lives in Louisiana and with whom the defendant previously resided in the state.
Fathering a child while residing in or physically present in Louisiana.
Manufacturing a product or component that causes injury in Louisiana, if the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated the product reaching the state.

Beyond those eight, Section 3201(B) adds a catch-all: Louisiana courts may exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident on any basis consistent with the Louisiana Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.¹ That provision is what makes the statute reach as far as due process will permit. If constitutional jurisdiction exists but doesn’t fit neatly into the eight listed categories, subsection (B) fills the gap.

Specific Jurisdiction Versus General Jurisdiction

Not every claim against a non-resident works the same way. Courts draw a hard line between specific and general jurisdiction, and the standards are dramatically different.

Specific jurisdiction applies when the lawsuit arises directly out of the defendant’s contacts with Louisiana. If a Texas company ships a defective product into Louisiana and someone is hurt by it, Louisiana has specific jurisdiction over that company for that injury. The connection between the defendant’s in-state activity and the claim is what makes jurisdiction proper.³ After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court (2017), courts require a tight fit between the specific claims and the defendant’s Louisiana activities.

General jurisdiction is broader but far harder to establish. It allows a state to hear any claim against a defendant, even one wholly unrelated to the state, but only when the defendant is essentially “at home” there. For individuals, that means domicile. For corporations, it typically means the state of incorporation or the principal place of business. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014), general jurisdiction over corporations outside those home states is rare. The older test of “continuous and systematic” contacts is no longer enough by itself. In de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., the Louisiana Supreme Court evaluated a non-resident shipping company’s Louisiana contacts under a two-part due process analysis, looking at both the extent of the contacts and whether jurisdiction would be fundamentally fair.⁴

The Constitutional Test: Minimum Contacts and Reasonableness

Because Section 3201(B) pushes the statute to the constitutional limit, the Louisiana Supreme Court confirmed in A & L Energy, Inc. v. Pegasus Group that the whole inquiry collapses into a single due process analysis rooted in International Shoe Co. v. Washington.⁵

Purposeful Availment

The first question is whether the defendant purposefully directed activity at Louisiana. Random or accidental contact is not enough. The defendant must have deliberately reached into the state in a way that made being sued here foreseeable. In contract disputes, courts look at who initiated the relationship, where payments were directed, which state’s law governs the agreement, and whether the defendant maintained an ongoing presence in Louisiana.³ In product liability cases, simply placing a product into the stream of commerce with a vague hope it might reach Louisiana is generally not enough. Courts want evidence the manufacturer targeted Louisiana through advertising, distributor agreements, or product design choices aimed at the local market.

In Southmark Corp. v. Life Investors, Inc., the Fifth Circuit asked whether the defendant’s Louisiana activities rose above isolated or sporadic contact, focusing on deliberate engagement with the state rather than incidental connection.⁶ In Fox v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that a non-resident college’s scattered activities in Louisiana, such as occasional alumni events and fundraising, were too minimal to support jurisdiction.

Fairness and Reasonableness

Even when minimum contacts exist, the court still asks whether exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable. The U.S. Supreme Court set out five factors in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz:⁷

The burden on the defendant of litigating in Louisiana, considering distance, resources, and logistics.
Louisiana’s interest in resolving the dispute, especially where its own residents are involved.
The plaintiff’s interest in obtaining effective relief in Louisiana.
The efficiency of resolving the case in Louisiana compared with another forum.
Broader interstate or national policy interests that favor or disfavor jurisdiction here.

These factors can occasionally defeat jurisdiction even when minimum contacts are technically present. If a defendant’s connection to Louisiana is thin and litigating here would be genuinely oppressive, a court can decline jurisdiction on fairness grounds alone.⁸

How to Challenge Personal Jurisdiction

In Louisiana state court, a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction by filing a declinatory exception. Under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 925, lack of jurisdiction over the person is one of the objections that must be raised through this exception, and every objection that may be raised this way is waived unless it is pleaded.⁹

Timing is unforgiving. Article 928 requires the declinatory exception to be filed before or with the answer, and before filing any other pleading seeking relief, with narrow exceptions for requests such as a time extension or posting security for costs. It must also be filed before the court signs a default judgment.¹⁰ Miss the window and the defense is gone. File an answer or any substantive pleading without also raising the jurisdictional objection, and you have consented to Louisiana’s jurisdiction by default.

In federal court the mechanism is different. A defendant raises lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), either by pre-answer motion or in the answer itself. The defense is waived if omitted from an initial Rule 12 motion or from the responsive pleading.¹¹ The standard timeline is 21 days after service, or 60 days if service was waived within the United States.

Whatever the forum, the plaintiff generally bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant’s contacts with Louisiana are sufficient to support jurisdiction. Once the defendant objects, the court examines whether the plaintiff has demonstrated the necessary connection between the defendant’s conduct and the state.

Serving a Non-Resident Under the Long Arm Statute

Winning a jurisdictional argument means nothing if service was defective, and losing on jurisdiction means nothing if service was never valid to begin with. La. R.S. 13:3204 sets out how to notify a non-resident of a Louisiana lawsuit. The plaintiff’s attorney, or the plaintiff if unrepresented, must send a certified copy of the citation and petition to the defendant by registered or certified mail, or arrange delivery by commercial courier. The court may also designate an individual to make service, or the plaintiff may use anyone authorized to serve process under the law of the place where the defendant is located.¹²

If none of those methods work, the court can appoint an attorney to represent the absent defendant under Code of Civil Procedure Article 5091. Service made under any of these methods has the same legal effect as personal service on the defendant in Louisiana.¹²

Sloppy service creates real problems. A defendant who was never properly notified can attack any resulting judgment, and courts take those challenges seriously. Keep proof of service, whether that is a certified mail return receipt or a process server’s affidavit. Without it, you may find yourself relitigating whether the defendant was ever properly served.

What Happens If a Non-Resident Ignores the Lawsuit

A non-resident who ignores service faces a real risk of default judgment. Under both Louisiana and federal procedure, the summons itself must warn the defendant that failing to appear and defend will result in a judgment.¹³ In federal court, a defendant who was formally served generally has 21 days to respond. A defendant who waived formal service gets 60 days if the waiver was sent within the United States, or 90 days if sent internationally.¹¹

Once those deadlines pass, the plaintiff can move for entry of default and then default judgment. The judgment is enforceable, and unwinding it after the fact is difficult. Courts grant relief from default only in narrow circumstances, typically requiring the defendant to show a valid reason for the failure to respond, a meritorious defense to the underlying claim, and that the plaintiff would not be unfairly prejudiced. For non-residents unfamiliar with Louisiana practice, the combination of out-of-state service and tight response deadlines makes it surprisingly easy to end up with an enforceable judgment entered without ever setting foot in court. If you have been served under the long arm statute, treat the deadline as the most important date on your calendar and speak with a Louisiana attorney immediately.

1
Justia. Louisiana Revised Statutes 13-3201 – Personal Jurisdiction Over Nonresidents
2
Louisiana State Legislature. Louisiana Revised Statutes 13-3201 – Personal Jurisdiction Over Nonresidents
3
Constitution Annotated, Congress.gov. Minimum Contact Requirements for Personal Jurisdiction
4
Justia. De Reyes v. Marine Mgt. and Consulting
5
Justia. A and L Energy, Inc. v. Pegasus Group
6
Justia. Southmark Corporation v. Life Investors, Inc.
7
Constitution Annotated, Congress.gov. Reasonableness Test for Personal Jurisdiction
8
Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)
9
Louisiana State Legislature. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 925 – Objections Raised by Declinatory Exception; Waiver
10
Louisiana State Legislature. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 928 – Time of Pleading Exceptions
11
Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12 – Defenses and Objections
12
Justia. Louisiana Revised Statutes 13-3204 – Service of Process
13
Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4 – Summons