Albe v. City of New Orleans, 150 So. 3d 361

The City of New Orleans contracted with American Traffic Solutions to operate an automated traffic‑enforcement camera system that mailed civil delinquency notices for unpaid citations.
Delinquency notices issued through 2009 included a phrase threatening “additional fines and possible jail time,” language the parties agree lacked legal basis.
Vernetta Ballard received two such notices on May 30 and June 3, 2008.
A class action initially filed in December 2008 was amended; class status as to notices with the “jail time” language was asserted in a supplemental petition filed July 16, 2009—more than one year after Ballard’s notices.
Ballard conceded her tort claims (fraud, IIED, negligent infliction of emotional distress) were prima facie prescribed but argued contra non valentem tolled the one‑year prescriptive period because defendants supplied false jail‑time information and failed to correct it.
The district court sustained American Traffic’s exception of prescription and dismissed Ballard’s claims with prejudice; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the third category of contra non valentem (defendant’s concealment/misrepresentation) tolls the one‑year prescriptive period	Ballard: American Traffic’s false “jail time” language and the City’s failure to notify recipients of its falsity amounted to misrepresentation/ concealment that lulled her into inaction	Defendants: Notices contained contact information and ordinance references; nothing prevented Ballard from investigating; no concealment that prevented inquiry	Court: Rejected tolling — notices provided sufficient information (customer service number, ordinance citations) and defendants did not effectually prevent inquiry; third category inapplicable
Whether the fourth category of contra non valentem (cause of action not known or reasonably knowable) tolls the one‑year prescriptive period	Ballard: She did not know the “jail time” language was false until after the prescriptive period elapsed, so claim was not reasonably knowable	Defendants: Ignorance of legal consequences does not excuse delay; constructive knowledge would have arisen from information on the notice and publicly available ordinances	Court: Rejected tolling — ignorance of the law (legal rights) does not toll prescription; constructive knowledge available via ordinary diligence; fourth category inapplicable

Spott v. Otis Elevator Co., 601 So.2d 1355 (La. 1992) (burden rules and general principles for peremptory exceptions)
Plaquemines Parish Comm’n Council v. Delta Dev. Co., 502 So.2d 1034 (La. 1987) (articulation of contra non valentem and its four categories)
Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So.3d 234 (La. 2010) (limits on contra non valentem; requirements for concealment and constructive knowledge)
Martin v. Myd Supply Co., 119 So.2d 484 (La. 1960) (ignorance of legal rights does not toll prescription)