A brief continuance of the eviction trial must be granted under La. C.C.P. art. 1602 if you are unable, with due diligence, to obtain evidence or witnesses material to the case.1  In addition, due process requires that a tenant have a fair opportunity to present his case.2  Thus, subpoenas for witnesses and documents must be issued immediately so that the due diligence standard for an Article 1602 peremptory continuance will be met.3  Evictions involving the repair-and-deduct defense or the abuse-of-right defense often require additional time to subpoena witnesses and documents. A motion to continue may also be granted on discretionary grounds.4

The United States Supreme Court has held that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that courts accommodate people with disabilities.5  Federal civil rights laws require courts to grant a continuance where the tenant’s disability prevents attendance.6

• 1La. C.C.P. arts. 1602, 4831. Despite the statute, continuances in evictions are not often granted.
• 2Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U.S. 363, 385 (1974).
• 3Oftentimes, the tenant has trouble procuring evidence or does not respond to the advocate’s request in a timely manner.
• 4La. C.C.P. art. 1601.
• 5Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004).
• 6Anast v. Commonwealth Apartments, 956 F. Supp. 792, 801 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (finding landlord discriminated against tenant with disabilities for reasons that included failing to postpone the eviction hearing until she was out of the hospital); In re Marriage of James M. & Christine J.C., 158 Cal. App. 4th 1261, 1265 (2008) (court erred by failing to grant continuance as ADA accommodation); Biscaro v. Stern, 181 Cal. App. 4th 702, 710 (2010) (court erred in refusing to rule on reasonable accommodation request); Blackhouse v. Doe, 24 A.3d 72, 76 (Me. 2011) (same); cf. Marks v. Tennessee, 562 F. App’x 341 (6th Cir. 2014) (finding court substantially accommodated litigant’s disabilities).

The trial of most residential evictions within 3 to 7 days of the filing of the rule for possession generally makes pre-trial discovery infeasible. However, in trial de novo appeals of justice of peace eviction judgments, there will often be 2 or more weeks before the trial date. This delay can provide sufficient time to issue discovery or notice a deposition.1  In a case with a shorter timeline, where discovery is necessary to the tenant’s defense, advocates should consider issuing discovery, and then moving for expedited discovery and a continuance until expedited discovery is produced.

• 1It is equally important to consult the local and uniform rules of district court for conflicting timelines and dates. For instance, formal discovery allows a party 30 days to respond interrogatories and requests for production whereas the court appearance may be sooner than 30 days. La. C.C.P. art. 1458, 1462.

The Code of Civil Procedure allows any party to request a written transcript of testimony.1  A verbatim recordation of the testimony should always be obtained if you anticipate an appeal (other than an appeal by trial de novo). Where there is no recordation, a narrative of facts may be used.2  However, reliance on a narrative of facts is not advised because the judge or opposing counsel will often control the contents of the narrative of facts. In addition, completing the preparation and filing of an approved narrative of facts by the return date of the appeal (typically, one week after the judgment when testimony was not recorded) is burdensome on appellant’s counsel.

• 1La. C.C.P. art. 2130.
• 2See La. C.C.P. art. 2131.

Where landlord fails to prove the elements of his prima facie case, the tenant may orally move for involuntary dismissal under La. C.C.P. 1672(B) after the landlord has closed his case. Be sure to reserve your client’s right to present her defense if the motion is denied.

A lease will be dissolved only when it is shown that the landlord is undoubtedly entitled to such a remedy.1  You should argue that a lease should not be canceled unless the violations of the terms of the lease are material and important.2

• 1Hous. Auth. of Town of Lake Providence v. Burks, 486 So. 2d 1068, 1069 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1986); Wahlder v. Osborne, 417 So. 2d 71, 73 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1982); Atkinson v. Richeson, 393 So. 2d 801, 803 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1978).
• 2See, e.g., Carriere v. Bank of La., 95-3058 (La. 12/13/96), 702 So. 2d 648; Karno v. Fein Caterer, 2002-CA-1269 (La. App. 4 Cir. 04/16/03), 846 So. 2d 105; Lillard v. Hulbert, 9 So. 2d 852 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1942) (ruling that tenant’s lease violation was substantial enough to warrant eviction; overruled on other grounds).