Eisele v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.
3:20-cv-01740
D. Or.May 19, 2025Background
- Kathleen Eisele originally sued Home Depot in Oregon state court, alleging unlawful rounding of employee time punches and failure to pay wages and vacation pay in violation of Oregon law.
- The federal court concluded that Home Depot’s rounding practices were not authorized under Oregon law and any net underpayment was not excusable, but it found no willful violation.
- After Home Depot paid all allegedly underpaid wages with interest to class members ("true-up" payments), Eisele filed a new class action ("Eisele II"), contending the interest should not have been reported as wages on W-2 forms and alleging related statutory violations.
- The court dismissed Eisele II, finding her claims insufficient and denied her leave to further amend, holding the deficiencies were not curable by amendment.
- Eisele then filed a post-judgment motion for relief, seeking to reopen the case and amend her complaint to assert alternative legal theories based on the same facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reopening judgment to allow new legal theories under Rule 59/60 | Court should allow amendment to add alternative state law theories | Plaintiff had ample opportunity to amend before judgment | Denied; no basis for post-judgment amendment |
| Manifest error / extraordinary circumstances | Court’s denial failed to explain why whole complaint couldn’t be amended | No new facts, change in law, or extraordinary circumstance shown | No manifest error or extraordinary circumstances |
| Amendment after judgment entered | Leave to amend should be liberally granted, even post-judgment | Liberal amendment standard doesn’t apply post-judgment without clear error | Liberal standard doesn’t apply; judgment stands |
| Futility of amendment | New legal theories could cure deficiencies on same facts | Amendments would be futile given prior record and filings | Amendment would be futile; denial of leave to amend upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing Rule 59(e) standard, including manifest injustice as a rare basis)
- Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 2001) (amendment post-judgment requires more than just desire for a new legal theory; no error in denying leave to amend after judgment)
- Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2006) (Rule 60(b) does not allow relief for regret over strategic litigation decisions)
- Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 2004) (court has broad discretion to deny leave to amend when complaint has previously been amended)
- Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 59(e) not for raising new arguments that could have been made earlier)