Rotkiske v. Klemm
140 S. Ct. 355
| SCOTUS | 2019Background
- Rotkiske owed about $1,200; creditor referred the debt to Klemm & Associates for collection.
- Klemm sued in 2008 (withdrawn) and again in 2009, allegedly effecting service at an address where Rotkiske no longer lived; a default judgment entered after Rotkiske did not respond.
- Rotkiske claims he did not learn of the 2009 default judgment until 2014 when he was denied a mortgage; he sued under the FDCPA in 2015, alleging Klemm filed a time‑barred suit and thereby violated the FDCPA.
- District Court dismissed under the FDCPA’s one‑year statute of limitations, § 1692k(d); Rotkiske argued a discovery rule should delay accrual; he also alleged equitable tolling/fraud-based concealment.
- The Third Circuit (en banc) affirmed: § 1692k(d) runs from the date the violation "occurs," not discovery; Rotkiske failed to preserve any equitable fraud‑discovery argument on appeal.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed: absent an applicable equitable doctrine, § 1692k(d) begins to run on the date of the alleged violation; Rotkiske forfeited reliance on the fraud‑specific discovery rule and the Court did not decide whether equitable doctrines could apply to § 1692k(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the FDCPA’s 1‑year limitations period begin to run under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d)? | Rotkiske: apply a general discovery rule; limitations run from when plaintiff discovers (or should have discovered) the violation. | Klemm: statute’s plain text starts the clock on the date the violation "occurs." | The Court: statute is unambiguous—limitations begin on the date the violation occurs, not on discovery, absent equitable doctrines. |
| Can petitioner rely on an equitable, fraud‑specific discovery rule to excuse late filing? | Rotkiske: fraudulent concealment ("sewer service") prevented discovery and should invoke a fraud‑based discovery rule or equitable tolling. | Klemm: petitioner did not preserve such an argument; statutory text controls. | The Court: petitioner forfeited the fraud‑specific argument on appeal; the Court did not decide whether equitable doctrines can apply to § 1692k(d). |
Key Cases Cited
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) (discussed the limits of judicially imported discovery rules and equitable tolling in federal statutes)
- Mangum v. Action Collection Serv., Inc., 575 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) (applied a general discovery rule to FDCPA accrual)
- Bailey v. Glover, 88 U.S. 342 (1875) (articulated the fraud‑based discovery rule/equitable exception for fraud concealment)
- Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392 (1946) (recognized that fraud or concealment can delay accrual of limitations)
- Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633 (2010) (described the fraud discovery rule as equity‑based and distinct from equitable tolling)
- Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U.S. 442 (2013) (explained accrual principles and the limited role of discovery rules)
- Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U.S. 192 (1997) (noted standard rule that limitations commence when cause of action accrues)
- Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010) (start with statutory text when interpreting limitations provisions)