Rotkiske did not discover the existence of the default judgment against him until September 2014. OnJune 29, 2015, less than one year after discovering the default judgment, but more than six years after it was obtained, Rotkiske sued Klemm under the FDCPA.Klemm moved to dismiss under the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations, 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d). Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, Rotkiske responded that the “discovery rule” should apply so that the statute of limitations began to run when he knew or should have known of the alleged FDCPA violation, rather than the date the violation occurred.

In addition, the petitioner’s amended complaint alleged that he was entitled to equitable tolling because the respondent “purposely served process in a manner that ensured that he would not receive service.” The respondent moved to dismiss the suit as barred by 15 U. S. C. §1692k(d), the FDCPA’s statute of limitations.The district court dismissed the action, holding that the Ninth Circuit’s “discovery rule” (presumption that statute of limitations period begins to run on the day the plaintiff knew or should have known about the FDCPA violation) did not apply to 15 U. S. C. §1692k(d). On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision but “expressly rejected the Ninth Circuit’s approach, stating that there is no default presumption that all federal limitation periods run from the date of discovery.”Due to the conflict between the Courts of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review on the applicability of the “discovery rule” to the FDCPA’s statute of limitations.

The FDCPA requires that any lawsuit must be brought, if at all, “within one year from the date on which the violation” of the act occurs. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). The US Supreme Court will hear argument this month in Rotkiske v. Klemm to decide whether this statute of limitations is paused until a plaintiff discovers the basis for his or her lawsuit.The facts underlying the case are straightforward.

Jurisdiction Guidelines and Issues - GenerallySubject Matter JurisdictionFair Debt Collection Practices Act cases may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d).Statute of Limitations FDCPA claims may be brought up to 1 year from the date of the alleged violation. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d).Damages - Set by StatuteIn individual cases, the Act allows up to $1,000.00 per action, plus actual damages.

Beginning at the language of the FDCPA, Justice Thomas wrote that the statute “unambiguously sets the date of the violation as the event that starts the one-year limitations period.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). Thomas cited Justice Scalia, who in 2001 said that the expansive approach to the latent injury or “discovery rule” is a “bad wine of recent vintage.”

In ShortThe Situation: The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") allows plaintiffs to sue over abusive debt-collection practices within one year of "the date on which the violation occurs." 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit split with the Ninth and Fourth Circuits by holding that the FDCPA's limitations period begins to run at the time of the violation—even if a plaintiff does not discover the violation until later.

The Supreme Court’s DecisionIn an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations under the FDCPA begins to run “on the date the alleged FDCPA violation actually happened.” In analyzing the plain language of 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), the Supreme Court noted that the language of the statute was unambiguous in choosing the occurrence of a violation as the starting point of the one-year limitations period, as opposed to discovery of the violation. The Supreme Court found that Congress had enacted other federal statutes around the time of the FDCPA containing specific provisions regarding the discovery or ripening of claims.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in the matter of Rotkiske v. Klemm. At issue is whether the discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). The controversy is centered on the FDCPA statutory text, “the date on which the violation occurs,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), and whether such language governs in a dispute or the discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations. The discovery rule holds that the statute of limitations begins when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the facts giving rise to his legal claim.

On February 25, 2019, the United States Supreme Court accepted appeal from the Third Circuit’s decision in Rotkiske v. Klemm et al., No. 16-1668 (3d Cir. May 15, 2018). The Court is now primed to answer whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) encompasses the “discovery rule”—which tolls the statute of limitations until a plaintiff discovers he or she has been harmed—even though the relevant portion of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), limits a cause of action thereunder to “one year from the date on which the violation occurs.” In Rotkiske v. Klemm, No. 18-328, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity resolve a circuit split between the Third Circuit and the Fourth and Ninth Circuits concerning whether the discovery rule applies to the FDCPA.

The Act states that “[a]n action to enforce any liability created by this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United States district court … within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). The United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held that the time begins to run not when the violation occurs, but when it is discovered.