Rotkiske v. Klemm

Background

Kevin Rotkiske failed to pay about $1,200 in credit-card debt that was referred to a law firm for collection. The firm sued him in state court, served papers at an old address where others accepted service, and later secured a default judgment. Rotkiske says he did not learn of the judgment until 2014 when a mortgage was denied. He filed an FDCPA suit in 2015 more than one year after the alleged violation, claiming the collector intentionally hid the suit to prevent notice.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the FDCPA’s one-year filing deadline starts when the violation occurs or when the consumer discovers it. The majority held the statute unambiguously starts the clock on the date the violation “occurs,” based on the statute’s text and ordinary dictionary meanings. The Court refused to read a general discovery rule into the statute and explained that courts should not add omitted language. Because Rotkiske did not properly preserve a claim that an equitable, fraud-specific discovery rule excused his late filing, he could not rely on that doctrine here.

Real world impact

Practically, the decision means most FDCPA claims must be filed within one year of the complained-of conduct, not when a consumer later learns of it. Consumers who discover violations after a year may be barred unless they can show an applicable equitable exception, a fraud-based rule, or other tolling that the Court did not decide here. The ruling resolves a circuit split about the timing rule and affirms the Third Circuit’s judgment.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor joined the judgment but noted equity-based fraud exceptions exist. Justice Ginsburg would have applied a fraud discovery rule and remanded for further proceedings.