493:
plaintiff. The majority opinion rejected
Rotkiske's wish to incorporate a discovery rule into the FDCPA, describing such an expansive application of the discovery rule as a "bad wine of recent vintage". The opinion noted that Congress could have chosen to include a discovery rule in the law but deliberately chose not to, making it inappropriate for the Supreme Court to add that to the law. It also noted that, though Rotkiske had made an argument based on equitable tolling and fraud in the District Court, he chose not to raise that argument in his appeal, thus preventing the Supreme Court from addressing it.
34:
531:
limitations on the date that he learned of the default judgment (in 2014). She considers this fraud-based discovery rule distinct from the generic discovery rule rejected by the majority, and would apply it even in cases where the generic discovery rule does not apply. Ginsburg's opinion also challenges the claim that
Rotkiske failed to preserve the fraud argument in his appeals.
403:
Rotkiske's federal lawsuit was first heard by the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Rotkiske argued that Klemm had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it filed its second lawsuit against him in 2009, after the state-law statute of limitations had expired. He argued that Klemm should
505:
agreed with the majority opinion's interpretation of the FDCPA and its ruling against
Rotkiske. She wrote separately to challenge the majority's assertion that the discovery rule was a "bad wine of recent vintage", noting that the Supreme Court had long recognized this exception to the statutes of
492:
reading of the FDCPA and found that the plain language of the law was unambiguous: an FDCPA action "may be brought within one year from the date on which the violation occurs", with no mention of "discovery rule" extending the deadline to file to one year after the violation was discovered by the
382:
in March 2008. However, it served the notification of the lawsuit to an old address, where a stranger at that address accepted the notification. When Klemm learned that they had the wrong address, they dropped the suit. In 2009, Klemm filed suit for the second time, sending the notification of the
415:
meant that the statute of limitations should not have begun until 2014 (when he discovered the default judgment while applying for his mortgage). He argued that the doctrine of equitable tolling applied to his case because Klemm committed fraud by deliberately sending the notification of the 2009
530:
filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. She agreed with the majority's interpretation of the FDCPA statute of limitations, but asserted that the fraudulent actions alleged in the complaint should warrant the application of the discovery rule, starting the statute of
427:
In March 2016 Eastern
District court sided with Klemm, dismissing Rotkiske's lawsuit over the statute of limitations issue. The judge ruled that the statute of limitations continues to run even if the plaintiff did not know about the FDCPA violation. They also rejected his argument regarding
362:. (That is, the statute of limitations can be 'tolled' (paused) for a period of time, granting one party additional time to file a lawsuit). Even if a statute doesn't explicitly contain a provision for tolling, courts can sometimes toll a statute of limitations under the principle of
327:
practices. It enacted regulations on the way debt collectors could conduct business, including requirements for serving notice of collection lawsuits to debtors. The FDCPA is enforced by a variety of federal agencies, primarily the
428:
equitable tolling, ruling that, even if Klemm had deliberately sent the notification to the wrong house, Rotkiske had not been misled by their conduct
Rotkiske appealed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which in a unanimous
282:
of 1977. The Court ruled that the statute of limitations begins one year after the alleged FDCPA violation took place, not one year after the violation was discovered by the plaintiff. This ruling affirmed a decision by the
390:
In
September 2014, Rotkiske discovered the default judgment on his record when he was denied a mortgage because of it. In June 2015, Rotkiske filed a federal lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the
374:
The plaintiff, Rotkiske, accrued approximately $ 1,200 in credit card debt between 2003 and 2005. After he failed to pay the debt, his bank turned to a professional debt-collection firm called Klemm & Associates.
392:
979:
825:
989:
913:
574:
439:
82:
443:
284:
984:
476:
On
December 10, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the one-year filing deadline for FDCPA lawsuits runs from the date when the alleged violation occurs.
880:
383:
lawsuit the same address as in 2008 where, again, a stranger accepted the notification. When
Rotkiske failed to appear, the Philadelphia Municipal Court entered a
974:
446:, each of which had previously held that the statute of limitations begins to toll from the date the violation was discovered, not when it occurred.
969:
438:, upheld the Eastern District court's ruling against him in May 2018. The precedent established by the 3rd Circuit contradicted rulings from the
340:; this allows private individuals who are harmed by unlawful debt collection practices to file lawsuits against the debt collector on their own.
416:
lawsuit to an address that they knew was incorrect, thus depriving him of the ability to appear in court. This practice, colloquially known as
617:
652:
329:
726:
287:
Court of
Appeals. It is noteworthy for being the first signed opinion released from the 2019 term. It is also noteworthy for resolving a
310:
279:
271:
257:
144:
38:
994:
778:
404:
not have even attempted to contact him when it knew it did not have the legal ability to collect. Klemm responded by filing a
420:(in reference to the act of "serving" court papers to someone by dumping them in a sewer), is prohibited by law. He also
379:
687:
366:, generally when the plaintiff—through no fault of their own—was denied their ability to file suit in a timely manner.
450:
421:
408:, arguing that the FDCPA provides a 1-year statute of limitations for private suits, which had long expired by 2015.
461:
752:
999:
333:
411:
Rotkiske acknowledged that he had filed his lawsuit extremely late. However, in his filing he argued that the
851:
337:
359:
316:
275:
66:
917:
578:
424:
that the statute of limitations would not begin until he discovered the default judgment on his record.
77:
826:"Third Circuit: FDCPA Statute of Limitations Runs From Occurrence, Not Discovery, of Alleged Violation"
804:
111:
527:
320:
178:
924:
881:"Supreme Court rules debt collection lawsuit statute of limitations starts when violation occurs"
454:
951:
405:
384:
933:
570:
502:
485:
435:
324:
214:
194:
170:
824:
Kaplinsky, Alan; Culhane, John; Jackman, Stefanie; Willis, Christopher (May 17, 2018).
460:
Before the Supreme Court, Rotkiske was represented by Scott Gant of the prominent firm
182:
963:
540:
417:
412:
355:
349:
288:
599:
363:
206:
190:
162:
122:
147:
of 1977 begins to run when the violation occurs, not when the victim discovers it.
202:
618:"Justice Thomas Beats Out Justice Ginsburg for First Signed Opinion of OT 2019"
489:
231:
Thomas, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
130:
539:
This ruling upheld the 3rd Circuit's ruling against Rotkiske, and resolved a
465:
89:
777:
Strawbridge, Kimberly; Rubin, Jordan; Saltz, Heather (December 10, 2019).
323:
law which established federal legal protections against abusive or unfair
942:
808:
115:
603:
430:
126:
727:"Argument preview: A conflict between plain text and background rules"
543:
between the 3rd Circuit and the 4th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal.
319:
enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), a landmark
143:
The statute of limitations for private rights of action under the
653:"Justices Scratch Heads About When Clock Pauses for FDCPA Suits"
119:
33:
506:
limitation for suits based on fraud or concealment, including
358:
is a legal doctrine that allows for the delay or pausing of a
779:"Justices Rule for Creditor in 'Sewer Service' Debt Dispute"
688:"High Court Clears Debt Collector on Long-Delayed Suit"
980:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
457:, agreeing to hear the case, on February 25, 2019.
251:
243:
235:
227:
222:
151:
137:
102:
97:
72:
62:
52:
45:
26:
453:. The Supreme Court granted his application for a
484:In the 8–1 majority opinion, authored by Justice
562:
560:
558:
556:
990:United States statutory interpretation case law
819:
817:
753:"Argument analysis: "Not a paragon of clarity""
270:, 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a decision by the
8:
646:
644:
642:
640:
638:
291:regarding a major consumer protection law.
985:United States consumer protection case law
449:Rotkiske appealed again, this time to the
23:
874:
872:
720:
718:
716:
714:
712:
710:
708:
378:Klemm first attempted to sue Rotkiske in
852:"One new grant and a 9th Circuit rebuke"
16:2019 United States Supreme Court opinion
589:
587:
552:
751:D'Onfro, Danielle (October 18, 2019).
725:D'Onfro, Danielle (October 10, 2019).
305:The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
681:
679:
677:
675:
673:
616:Adler, Jonathan (December 10, 2019).
21:2019 United States Supreme Court case
7:
468:argued the case on behalf of Klemm.
336:(FTC). The FDCPA also establishes a
330:Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
651:Saltz, Heather (October 16, 2019).
879:Ross, Jordan (December 10, 2019).
311:Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
280:Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
272:Supreme Court of the United States
258:Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
145:Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
39:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
975:United States Supreme Court cases
920:___ (2019) is available from:
512:Exploration Co. v. United States
133:granted, 139 S. Ct. 1259 (2019).
32:
850:Howe, Amy (February 25, 2019).
686:Ryan, Tim (December 10, 2019).
970:2019 in United States case law
118:Mar. 15, 2016); affirmed, 890
1:
413:doctrine of equitable tolling
952:Supreme Court (slip opinion)
501:In her concurrence, Justice
380:Philadelphia Municipal Court
451:United States Supreme Court
1016:
943:Oyez (oral argument audio)
462:Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
347:
308:
434:ruling authored by Judge
422:argued in the alternative
256:
156:
142:
48:Decided December 10, 2019
31:
334:Federal Trade Commission
995:Statutes of limitations
805: No. 15-cv-3638
692:Courthouse News Service
338:private right of action
57:Rotkiske v. Klemm et al
46:Argued October 18, 2019
912:, No. 18-328,
488:, the Court applied a
464:. Shay Dvoretzky from
360:statute of limitations
276:statute of limitations
622:The Volokh Conspiracy
508:Holmberg v. Armbrecht
472:Supreme Court opinion
811: Mar. 15, 2016).
600:890 F.3d 422
88:140 S. Ct. 355; 205
528:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
321:consumer protection
179:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
114:, 2016 WL 1021140 (
455:writ of certiorari
167:Associate Justices
910:Rotkiske v. Klemm
830:Ballard Spahr LLP
800:Rotkiske v. Klemm
595:Rotkiske v. Klemm
567:Rotkiske v. Klemm
406:motion to dismiss
267:Rotkiske v. Klemm
263:
262:
108:Rotkiske v. Klemm
106:Claim dismissed,
27:Rotkiske v. Klemm
1007:
956:
950:
947:
941:
938:
932:
929:
923:
896:
895:
893:
891:
876:
867:
866:
864:
862:
847:
841:
840:
838:
836:
821:
812:
802:
796:
790:
789:
787:
785:
774:
768:
767:
765:
763:
748:
742:
741:
739:
737:
722:
703:
702:
700:
698:
683:
668:
667:
665:
663:
648:
633:
632:
630:
628:
613:
607:
597:
591:
582:
564:
516:Bailey v. Glover
480:Majority opinion
385:default judgment
152:Court membership
36:
35:
24:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1000:Debt collection
960:
959:
954:
948:
945:
939:
936:
930:
927:
921:
905:
900:
899:
889:
887:
878:
877:
870:
860:
858:
849:
848:
844:
834:
832:
823:
822:
815:
798:
797:
793:
783:
781:
776:
775:
771:
761:
759:
750:
749:
745:
735:
733:
724:
723:
706:
696:
694:
685:
684:
671:
661:
659:
650:
649:
636:
626:
624:
615:
614:
610:
593:
592:
585:
581:___ (2019).
565:
554:
549:
537:
524:
503:Sonia Sotomayor
499:
486:Clarence Thomas
482:
474:
436:Thomas Hardiman
401:
399:In lower courts
372:
352:
346:
332:(CFPB) and the
325:debt collection
313:
307:
302:
297:
215:Brett Kavanaugh
205:
195:Sonia Sotomayor
193:
181:
171:Clarence Thomas
93:
47:
41:
22:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1013:
1011:
1003:
1002:
997:
992:
987:
982:
977:
972:
962:
961:
958:
957:
904:
903:External links
901:
898:
897:
868:
842:
813:
791:
769:
743:
704:
669:
657:Bloomberg News
634:
608:
583:
551:
550:
548:
545:
536:
533:
523:
520:
498:
495:
481:
478:
473:
470:
400:
397:
371:
368:
348:Main article:
345:
342:
309:Main article:
306:
303:
301:
300:Legal concepts
298:
296:
293:
274:involving the
261:
260:
254:
253:
249:
248:
245:
241:
240:
237:
233:
232:
229:
225:
224:
220:
219:
218:
217:
183:Stephen Breyer
168:
165:
160:
154:
153:
149:
148:
140:
139:
135:
134:
112:No. 15-cv-3638
104:
100:
99:
95:
94:
87:
74:
70:
69:
64:
60:
59:
54:
53:Full case name
50:
49:
43:
42:
37:
29:
28:
20:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1012:
1001:
998:
996:
993:
991:
988:
986:
983:
981:
978:
976:
973:
971:
968:
967:
965:
953:
944:
935:
926:
925:CourtListener
919:
915:
911:
907:
906:
902:
886:
882:
875:
873:
869:
857:
853:
846:
843:
831:
827:
820:
818:
814:
810:
806:
801:
795:
792:
780:
773:
770:
758:
754:
747:
744:
732:
728:
721:
719:
717:
715:
713:
711:
709:
705:
693:
689:
682:
680:
678:
676:
674:
670:
658:
654:
647:
645:
643:
641:
639:
635:
623:
619:
612:
609:
605:
601:
596:
590:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
563:
561:
559:
557:
553:
546:
544:
542:
541:circuit split
534:
532:
529:
521:
519:
517:
513:
509:
504:
496:
494:
491:
487:
479:
477:
471:
469:
467:
463:
458:
456:
452:
447:
445:
441:
437:
433:
432:
425:
423:
419:
418:sewer service
414:
409:
407:
398:
396:
394:
393:federal court
388:
387:against him.
386:
381:
376:
369:
367:
365:
361:
357:
351:
350:Tolling (law)
343:
341:
339:
335:
331:
326:
322:
318:
312:
304:
299:
294:
292:
290:
289:circuit split
286:
281:
277:
273:
269:
268:
259:
255:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:Case opinions
221:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
164:
161:
159:Chief Justice
158:
157:
155:
150:
146:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
91:
85:
84:
79:
75:
71:
68:
65:
61:
58:
55:
51:
44:
40:
30:
25:
19:
909:
890:December 11,
888:. Retrieved
884:
861:December 10,
859:. Retrieved
855:
845:
835:December 11,
833:. Retrieved
829:
799:
794:
784:December 10,
782:. Retrieved
772:
762:December 10,
760:. Retrieved
756:
746:
736:December 10,
734:. Retrieved
730:
697:December 10,
695:. Retrieved
691:
662:December 10,
660:. Retrieved
656:
627:December 10,
625:. Retrieved
621:
611:
594:
566:
538:
525:
515:
514:(1918), and
511:
507:
500:
483:
475:
459:
448:
429:
426:
410:
402:
389:
377:
373:
370:Case history
353:
314:
266:
265:
264:
252:Laws applied
210:
207:Neil Gorsuch
198:
191:Samuel Alito
186:
174:
163:John Roberts
107:
98:Case history
81:
56:
18:
606: 2018).
497:Concurrence
444:9th Circuit
440:4th Circuit
285:3rd Circuit
236:Concurrence
203:Elena Kagan
964:Categories
885:Jurist.org
856:SCOTUSBlog
757:SCOTUSBlog
731:SCOTUSBlog
569:, No.
547:References
490:textualist
295:Background
278:under the
63:Docket no.
466:Jones Day
315:In 1977,
239:Sotomayor
90:L. Ed. 2d
73:Citations
908:Text of
809:E.D. Pa.
526:Justice
518:(1875).
510:(1946),
442:and the
354:In law,
317:Congress
247:Ginsburg
228:Majority
116:E.D. Pa.
604:3d Cir.
522:Dissent
431:en banc
356:tolling
344:Tolling
244:Dissent
138:Holding
129:2018);
127:3d Cir.
955:
949:
946:
940:
937:
934:Justia
931:
928:
922:
807: (
803:,
602: (
598:,
573:,
571:18-328
535:Effect
364:equity
213:
211:·
209:
201:
199:·
197:
189:
187:·
185:
177:
175:·
173:
67:18-328
916:
577:
131:cert.
103:Prior
80:___ (
918:U.S.
892:2019
863:2019
837:2019
786:2019
764:2019
738:2019
699:2019
664:2019
629:2019
579:U.S.
120:F.3d
83:more
78:U.S.
76:589
914:589
575:589
123:422
92:291
966::
883:.
871:^
854:.
828:.
816:^
755:.
729:.
707:^
690:.
672:^
655:.
637:^
620:.
586:^
555:^
395:.
110:,
894:.
865:.
839:.
788:.
766:.
740:.
701:.
666:.
631:.
125:(
86:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.