Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393

Rollins, an employee, sued Home Depot after a workplace injury; the case was removed to federal court.
Parties agreed to e-filing and a scheduling order setting May 11, 2020 as the dispositive-motions deadline.
Home Depot filed a motion for summary judgment on May 7; the e-filing notification went to Rollins’s counsel’s email “Other” folder and was not seen.
Rollins did not file an opposition or monitor the docket; the district court granted summary judgment and entered final judgment on May 27.
Rollins learned of the judgment on June 3 and moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter or amend; the district court denied relief.
Rollins appealed the denial of Rule 59(e) relief and attempted for the first time on appeal to dispute the merits (arguing a fact issue precluded summary judgment).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of Rule 59(e) relief was an abuse of discretion where counsel missed an e-filing notice	Missed notice due to email filtering excused failure to respond; court should reopen judgment	Service was accomplished via the court’s e-filing system; counsel had responsibility to monitor email and the docket; precedent bars relief	Affirmed. Denial not an abuse of discretion—Rule 59(e) is not available for counsel’s failure to monitor notifications or docket (not a manifest error)
Whether Rollins may raise on appeal a merits-based fact dispute that was not presented to the district court	Merits show a fact question on Home Depot’s breach and proximate cause, so summary judgment was improper	Argument was never raised below and thus is forfeited/waived; appellate court should not consider it	Forfeited. Court declines to consider the newly raised merits issue because it is not a pure legal question and there is no miscarriage of justice

Trevino v. City of Fort Worth, 944 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (failure to receive e-file notice due to technical filtering does not justify Rule 59(e) relief).
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy limited to correcting manifest errors or presenting new evidence).
Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 931 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2019) (Rule 59(e) not for arguments that could have been raised before judgment).
Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 563 (5th Cir. 2003) (intervening change in controlling law is a proper ground for Rule 59(e)).
Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T, Inc., 782 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (counsel has duty to read orders and monitor docket; failing to do so is not excusable).
Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (electronic-filing excuses compared to obvious excuses are disfavored).
Essinger v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 534 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2008) (issues not raised below generally will not be considered on appeal absent pure legal question or miscarriage of justice).
Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago, 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (distinguishing forfeiture from waiver).
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (waiver vs. forfeiture definitions).
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited).