How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Louisiana
7 min read
Published June 4, 2026 • By DocketMath Team
Step-by-step
Below is a practical way to run the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Louisiana (US-LA). This walkthrough is designed to match Louisiana’s default offer timing rule under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 970, which sets the window for when an offer may be served.
Note: Louisiana’s offer timing is governed by La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 970(A), which provides a general/default period: an offer can be served “at any time more than twenty days before the time specified for the trial.” No claim-type-specific sub-rule was identified in the provided jurisdiction data, so the analyzer should treat the timing requirement as the default rule.
1) Open the analyzer for Louisiana
- Go to the DocketMath tool page: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
- Confirm the jurisdiction is set to Louisiana (US-LA).
- Start a new calculation (or create a new run, depending on your DocketMath UI).
2) Gather the facts you’ll need (inputs)
Before you enter numbers, collect the settlement/evaluation details you want DocketMath to analyze. The analyzer typically needs a blend of:
- Offer of judgment amount (the dollar figure in the offer)
- Timeline facts relevant to whether the offer was served more than 20 days before trial (the UI may ask for dates)
- Final judgment amount (what the party you’re modeling ultimately receives at judgment, or the number the analyzer compares)
- Who made the offer (plaintiff vs. defendant), because Louisiana’s cost-shifting effects depend on the match between the offer and the judgment outcome
- Any additional post-offer assumptions/settings the UI requests (for example, interest/cost parameters)
If DocketMath presents date fields, plan to enter:
- Offer service date
- Trial date (or the “time specified for the trial” date you’re using)
3) Enter dates to satisfy the Louisiana timing rule
Louisiana’s default timing rule appears in La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 970(A). The key threshold is:
- The offer may be served more than 20 days before the time specified for trial
- The offer must be in writing
- The offer must be made without any admission of liability
To reflect that in DocketMath:
- Compute whether (Trial date − Offer service date) > 20 days
- Enter the dates exactly as reflected in your case records so the analyzer can validate the timing requirement
Pitfall: A common mistake is entering trial information loosely (for example, by using the wrong trial date or rounding dates in a way that changes the day-count). If your offer was served 18–20 days before the trial date, La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 970(A) may not be satisfied—this can change the analyzer’s eligibility outcome and the modeled cost/award effects.
4) Enter the judgment comparison numbers
Next, enter the judgment amount that the analyzer will compare against the offer amount.
- If you’re modeling plaintiff positioning, the analyzer will compare the modeled judgment outcome to the plaintiff’s offer.
- If you’re modeling defendant positioning, it will compare the modeled judgment outcome to the defendant’s offer.
You’ll usually select:
- Offer made by: Plaintiff or Defendant
- Offer amount: (dollar figure)
- Judgment amount: (dollar figure)
If the DocketMath interface offers choices like “use net judgment” vs. “total judgment,” choose the option that matches how the final judgment amount is actually stated in your case documents.
5) Run the calculation and review the eligibility checks
Click Analyze (or the equivalent button). DocketMath should produce results that typically include:
- A timing/eligibility check based on Louisiana’s rule (the >20-day requirement from La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 970(A))
- A comparison view showing how the judgment amount relates to the offer amount for the side you selected
- A summary of the cost/award-related effects the analyzer models for Louisiana’s framework
Even if the statute text is not reproduced in the UI, the analyzer’s underlying logic should correspond to art. 970(A) for the default timing and offer structure.
Disclaimer: This is a tooling workflow, not legal advice. Offers and judgments can involve nuances (including how numbers are calculated and what qualifies as an “offer” under the relevant procedures). Use the analyzer as an estimate and verify with the underlying filings and governing law.
6) Iterate: adjust inputs and watch outputs change
To pressure-test your strategy, run a few scenarios and observe how the outputs shift. A useful approach is to change one variable at a time:
- Increase/decrease the offer amount and see how the modeled “offer vs. judgment” relationship changes.
- Change the offer service date slightly around the eligibility boundary (for example, testing 21 days vs. 19 days before the trial date).
- Adjust the judgment amount assumption (for example, low/medium/high estimates) while keeping the dates constant.
Tip: When you rerun, keep timeline inputs steady while you vary only the offer amount (or vice versa) so you can clearly attribute changes in results.
Common pitfalls
Use this checklist before finalizing any Louisiana run in DocketMath:
- Timing window error: Offer served not more than 20 days before the trial date (fails the threshold in La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 970(A))
- Date format inconsistency: Entering dates in a way that effectively changes the day difference (and flips whether you’re above/below the 20-day cutoff)
- Wrong party perspective: Selecting “Plaintiff made the offer” when you intended to model “Defendant made the offer”
- Offer amount mismatch: Using an amount that doesn’t match the final offer as served (or using an outdated figure after amendments/stipulations)
- Judgment number mismatch: Using an estimate when the analyzer expects the specific judgment amount figure you want to model for comparison
- Assuming claim-type-specific timing: Treating the timing rule as dependent on claim type when the provided jurisdiction data supports the default “more than twenty days before trial” window under art. 970(A)
Warning: The analyzer can only model the inputs you provide. Louisiana’s statute also requires the offer be in writing and without any admission of liability (see La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 970(A)). If those elements are not reflected in your inputs/notes, results may not reflect the real-world legal effect.
Try it
Here’s a quick way to test the workflow using a mini-scenario. Replace the amounts and dates with your own case details.
Quick test checklist
- Set jurisdiction to Louisiana (US-LA)
- Enter Offer service date
- Enter Trial date
- Confirm the timing check passes more than 20 days
- Enter Offer amount
- Enter Judgment amount
- Select who made the offer (Plaintiff or Defendant)
- Run analysis
What you should expect to see
- When the dates satisfy La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 970(A) (“more than twenty days before the time specified for the trial”), the analyzer should treat the timing requirement as satisfied.
- Then the output should emphasize how the offer amount compares to the judgment amount for the side you selected.
Do one targeted rerun
To validate the workflow, change only one input:
- Change offer amount by ±5% and re-run to see how the modeled relationship changes.
- Or change the offer service date by a couple days around the 20-day line to see if eligibility flips.
If eligibility changes right when you cross the threshold, that’s a strong sign the analyzer is applying the statutory “more than twenty days” standard from art. 970(A) correctly to your provided dates.
Finally, save/export results from DocketMath (if supported) so you can compare scenarios side-by-side.
Related reading
- How to calculate Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in Philippines — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
- Worked example: Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in Philippines — Worked example with real statute citations
- Inputs you need for Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in Philippines — Input checklist with sourcing guidance