How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Louisiana

Step-by-step

Use DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer to model what a Louisiana offer to allow judgment can mean for costs and interest exposure under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 970. This walkthrough focuses on running the calculator and understanding how Louisiana-specific rules affect the outputs.

Louisiana’s statute provides that a party may make an offer “for a specified amount, including interest and cost of court.” (See La. Code Civ. Ann. art. 970: https://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78816)

1) Open the analyzer from DocketMath

1. Go to the primary call-to-action: ** /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Confirm you’re in the correct jurisdiction mode:

   • Jurisdiction: **US-LA (Louisiana)

If you don’t see a jurisdiction selector, use the analyzer’s Louisiana configuration (often preselected from your workspace settings). When in doubt, reload the page so the tool picks up the jurisdiction context.

2) Enter the “offer” numbers (what the other side can accept)

The analyzer generally needs these concepts (the labels in the UI may differ slightly):

• Offer amount (principal): the specified sum stated in the offer
• Interest handling: whether you want to model interest inside the offer amount or added separately
• Costs of court: whether you want to include estimated costs in the calculation (if the tool asks for them)

How the inputs affect outputs

• The offer amount typically drives any comparison the tool performs between:

  • the court award vs. the offer, and/or
  • any “more favorable” or break-even logic the UI presents.
• Interest can change the model’s total exposure because art. 970 frames the offer as including “interest and cost of court.” That means totals may not be purely “principal” depending on how the tool handles these fields.

3) Add timing inputs (the trigger mechanics)

For offer-of-judgment scenarios, timing often determines how the tool applies cost/interest consequences.

Look for fields such as:

• Offer date
• Judgment date (or an “as of” date)
• Acceptance deadline / response period (if prompted)

For Louisiana, the tool should align to La. Code Civ. Ann. art. 970, which authorizes the offer construct “including interest and cost of court.” The jurisdiction data provided here did not surface claim-type-specific timing sub-rules, so you should rely on the general/default period the analyzer uses for art. 970.

4) Enter the “outcome” number (what the court ultimately awarded)

To simulate the practical effect of an offer, you’ll typically supply:

• Estimated court award (principal)
• Estimated interest (if the tool distinguishes it)
• Final costs (if the model includes them)

How the tool uses the outcome

Many calculators compare the court award to the offer amount to determine whether the offer was “more favorable” to the offer-maker or the offeree (depending on the analyzer’s logic and UI labels). If the analyzer includes an acceptance vs. judgment comparison, your outcome values determine the direction of that comparison.

Gentle disclaimer: This is a modeling tool for planning and comparison—not a substitute for advice from a qualified attorney.

5) Run the calculation

Click Calculate (or the equivalent button in the analyzer).

When the results load, review these common output areas (the names vary):

• Total exposure (offer and modeled judgment totals)
• Cost/interest consequence estimate (the analyzer’s computed “what changes if…” outcome)
• Break-even comparisons (sometimes shown as a threshold)

6) Iterate with “what-if” scenarios

Offer-of-judgment work is usually scenario-driven. If the tool lets you adjust values, test at least these variants:

• Scenario A: Offer close to expected award

  • Increase/decrease the offer amount slightly (for example, ±$5,000) and observe how the cost/interest outcome changes.
• Scenario B: Higher projected court award

  • If the projected award rises, the offer vs. award relationship can flip, changing the analyzer’s conclusion.
• Scenario C: Interest/cost assumptions

  • If you include costs and interest, try both conservative and aggressive estimates to see which inputs drive sensitivity.

A practical workflow:

• keep offer amount and dates constant
• adjust only award and interest/cost assumptions

7) Sanity-check using the statute’s framing

Louisiana’s art. 970 frames the offer as “a specified amount, including interest and cost of court.” Use this checklist when the results look surprising:

Common pitfalls

1. Forgetting that art. 970 contemplates interest and costs

   • If you enter only principal amounts, your “total” numbers may understate exposure.
   • The statute text in the provided jurisdiction data explicitly includes “interest and cost of court” in the offer construct (La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 970).

2. Date inversion

   • Entering an offer date after judgment date can break internal time computations in the analyzer.
   • Re-check the timeline: offer date → response/judgment timeline → final award date.

3. Inconsistent “principal vs. total” entries

   • Some tools ask for principal only; others ask for total (principal + interest + costs).
   • Make sure your offer basis and your award basis are consistent.

4. Assuming claim-type-specific sub-rules

   • The jurisdiction data provided here did not surface claim-type-specific timing rules.
   • Treat the analyzer as using the general/default period from La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 970 rather than specialized carve-outs.

5. Over-trusting a single scenario

   • A single set of figures rarely captures the real uncertainty around awards, interest, and costs.
   • Run at least 2–3 scenarios to understand which inputs drive the result.

Try it

Here’s a practical way to validate the analyzer workflow in US-LA without overcomplicating assumptions.

Open the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer calculator and follow the steps above: Run the calculator.

Capture the source for each input so another team member can verify the same result quickly.

Quick test plan (use small, controlled changes)

• Set:

  • Offer amount: pick a single round number (e.g., $50,000)
  • Award estimate: start at $50,000, then test $45,000 and $60,000
  • Offer date / judgment date: use a realistic timeline where the judgment date is after the offer date
  • Interest & costs: toggle between “include” and “exclude” if the tool allows it

Then compare:

• Case 1: Award ≈ Offer

  • Expect the analyzer to show minimal difference.
• Case 2: Award lower than Offer

  • Watch how cost/interest consequences shift direction.
• Case 3: Award higher than Offer

  • Observe whether the modeled outcome changes.

Where to look in the output

After you click Calculate, focus on:

• the comparison between award and offer (if shown)
• any threshold/break-even indicator
• any summary of cost/interest impact

If the analyzer provides a narrative summary, verify it matches your inputs—especially dates and whether amounts are treated as principal vs. total.

Related reading

• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Alabama
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Arizona
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Colorado