WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1082

CIVIL/VENUE: Provides for venue with respect to the Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Rhonda Butler and 4 co-sponsors

The bill changes MPERS litigation venue to be in the district court of the employer’s judicial district, replacing the previous East Baton Rouge or domicile-based venue.

Effective date: 08/01/2026.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1082

Summary of Bill HB 1082 (2026, Louisiana)

Title: CIVIL/VENUE: Provides for venue with respect to the Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System

Sponsor: Rep. Jason DeWitt

Jurisdiction: Louisiana

Session: 2026 Regular Session

Status: Passed out of committee with favorable reports; scheduled floor debate noted in action history (as of the provided text)

1) Purpose and Intent

  • The bill revises venue rules for lawsuits involving the Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System (MPERS).
  • It aims to establish a specific venue where actions involving MPERS or its board of trustees must be instituted, replacing the previous venue framework.

2) Key Provisions and Changes

  • Amends and reenacts Code of Civil Procedure Article 84 and creates Code of Civil Procedure Article 84.1.

What currently exists (before the bill)

  • Under present law (C.C.P. Art. 84), actions involving MPERS must be brought in:
    • The parish of East Baton Rouge, or
    • The parish where the MPERS or employee benefit program is domicile (i.e., its home parish).

What the bill changes (after enactment)

  • Actions involving MPERS must be instituted before the district court of the judicial district in which the employer is located.
  • Additionally, Article 84.1 is created to specify venue for actions involving MPERS, ensuring that lawsuits are filed in the district court for the judicial district where the employer is located (rather than East Baton Rouge Parish or the domicile parish).

3) Parties and Affected Entities

  • Affects:
    • Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System (MPERS)
    • MPERS' board of trustees
    • Employers that contribute to or are tied to MPERS (as the location of the employer determines proper venue under the bill)
  • Potentially impacts plaintiffs who sue MPERS, as well as defense counsel and the administration of MPERS-related litigation by clarifying where suits may be filed.

4) Procedural and Timeline Considerations

  • Effective venue shift: Filing venue moves to the district court of the judicial district where the employer is located.
  • The change is codified through:
    • Amendments to Article 84, removing the former East Baton Rouge Parish/domicile-based venue language, and
    • Adding Article 84.1 to formalize the new venue rule.
  • Legislative history notes:
    • The bill was reported favorably in committee (two separate favorable reports noted in the history).
    • Floor debate was scheduled as of the latest action by the provided record.

5) Practical Impact

  • Consistency with other retirement system venue provisions: The bill aligns MPERS with a venue framework similar to other retirement systems listed in the surrounding text, focusing on the employer’s judicial district.
  • Potential for:
    • Faster access to local courts for employees and employers within a given district.
    • Clearer, more predictable venue.rules for MPERS-related litigation.
  • No dollar amounts, percentages, or fee changes are introduced in this bill.

If you’d like, I can provide a side-by-side comparison of the pre-law and post-law venue provisions or a plain-language example scenario illustrating where a suit against MPERS would be filed under current law versus the new rule.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.