Rotkiske v. Klemm

Last updated
Rotkiske v. Klemm
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 18, 2019
Decided December 10, 2019
Full case nameRotkiske v. Klemm et al
Docket no. 18-328
Citations589 U.S. ___ ( more )
140 S. Ct. 355; 205 L. Ed. 2d 291
Case history
PriorClaim dismissed, Rotkiske v. Klemm, No. 15-cv-3638, 2016 WL 1021140 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2016); affirmed, 890 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2018); cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 1259 (2019).
Holding
The statute of limitations for private rights of action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of 1977 begins to run when the violation occurs, not when the victim discovers it.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceSotomayor
DissentGinsburg
Laws applied
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 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. [1] This ruling affirmed a decision by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. [2] It is noteworthy for being the first signed opinion released from the 2019 term. [3] It is also noteworthy for resolving a circuit split regarding a major consumer protection law. [4]

Contents

Background

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

In 1977, Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), a landmark consumer protection law which established federal legal protections against abusive or unfair debt collection 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 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FDCPA also establishes a private right of action; this allows private individuals who are harmed by unlawful debt collection practices to file lawsuits against the debt collector on their own.

Tolling

In law, tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for the delay or pausing of a statute of limitations. (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 equity, generally when the plaintiff -- through no fault of their own -- was denied their ability to file suit in a timely manner.

Case history

The plaintiff, Rotkiske, accrued approximately $1,200 in credit card debt between 2003 and 2005. [5] After he failed to pay the debt, his bank turned to a professional debt-collection firm called Klemm & Associates. [6]

Klemm first attempted to sue Rotkiske in Philadelphia Municipal Court in March 2008. However, it served the notification of the lawsuit to an old address, where a stranger at that address accepted the notification. [6] When Klemm learned that they had the wrong address, they dropped the suit. [6] [7] In 2009, Klemm filed suit for the second time, sending the notification of the 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 default judgment against him. [6] [5]

In September 2014, Rotkiske discovered the default judgment on his record when he was denied a mortgage because of it. [5] In June 2015, Rotkiske filed a federal lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the federal court. [4] [6]

In lower courts

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 not have even attempted to contact him when it knew it did not have the legal ability to collect. Klemm responded by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing that the FDCPA provides a 1-year statute of limitations for private suits, which had long expired by 2015. [6]

Rotkiske acknowledged that he had filed his lawsuit extremely late. However, in his filing he argued that the doctrine of equitable tolling 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 lawsuit to an address that they knew was incorrect, thus depriving him of the ability to appear in court. [6] This practice, colloquially known as sewer service (in reference to the act of "serving" court papers to someone by dumping them in a sewer), is prohibited by law. [8] He also argued in the alternative that the statute of limitations would not begin until he discovered the default judgment on his record.

In March 2016 Eastern District court sided with Klemm, dismissing Rotkiske's lawsuit over the statute of limitations issue. [9] 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 equitable tolling, ruling that, even if Klemm had deliberately sent the notification to the wrong house, Rotkiske had not been misled by their conduct [4] Rotkiske appealed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which in a unanimous en banc ruling authored by Judge Thomas Hardiman, upheld the Eastern District court's ruling against him in May 2018. [2] The precedent established by the 3rd Circuit contradicted rulings from the 4th Circuit and the 9th Circuit, 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. [5] [10]

Rotkiske appealed again, this time to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted his application for a writ of certiorari, agreeing to hear the case, on February 25, 2019. [11]

Before the Supreme Court, Rotkiske was represented by Scott Gant of the prominent firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. [4] Shay Dvoretzky from Jones Day argued the case on behalf of Klemm.

Supreme Court opinion

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. [12]

Majority opinion

In the 8–1 majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court applied a textualist 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 plaintiff. [12] [5] 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. [1]

Concurrence

In her concurrence, Justice Sonia Sotomayor 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 limitation for suits based on fraud or concealment, including Holmberg v. Armbrecht (1946), Exploration Co. v. United States (1918), and Bailey v. Glover (1875). [1]

Dissent

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 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 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. [1]

Effect

This ruling upheld the 3rd Circuit's ruling against Rotkiske, and resolved a circuit split between the 3rd Circuit and the 4th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal. [4] [10]

Related Research Articles

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. Although one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S., it was rarely used for nearly two centuries after its passage, and its exact purpose and scope remain debated. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Act's primary purpose was to "promote harmony in international relations by ensuring foreign plaintiffs a remedy for international-law violations in circumstances where the absence of such a remedy might provoke foreign nations to hold the United States accountable." Since 1980, courts have generally interpreted the ATS to allow foreign nationals to seek remedies in U.S. courts for human rights violations committed outside the United States.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Pub. L. 95-109; 91 Stat. 874, codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1692 –1692p, approved on September 20, 1977 is a consumer protection amendment, establishing legal protection from abusive debt collection practices, to the Consumer Credit Protection Act, as Title VIII of that Act. The statute's stated purposes are: to eliminate abusive practices in the collection of consumer debts, to promote fair debt collection, and to provide consumers with an avenue for disputing and obtaining validation of debt information in order to ensure the information's accuracy. The Act creates guidelines under which debt collectors may conduct business, defines rights of consumers involved with debt collectors, and prescribes penalties and remedies for violations of the Act. It is sometimes used in conjunction with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia holding that the Virginia criminal law against fornication was unconstitutional. The court's decision followed the 2003 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which established the constitutionally-protected right of adults to engage in private, consensual sex.

Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding that an individual could sue for a violation of a federal law pursuant to a statute enacted by the U.S. Congress which created a general right to access certain information.

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a facial challenge to New Hampshire's parental notification abortion law. The First Circuit had ruled that the law was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement was proper. The Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded the case, but avoided a substantive ruling on the challenged law or a reconsideration of prior Supreme Court abortion precedent. Instead, the Court only addressed the issue of remedy, holding that invalidating a statute in its entirety "is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency</i>

American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, 493 F.3d 644, is a case decided July 6, 2007, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to bring the suit against the National Security Agency (NSA), because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP).

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Alien Tort Statute and the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The U.S. state of Montana has recognized same-sex marriage since a federal court ruled the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 19, 2014. It had previously denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1997 and in its State Constitution since 2004. The state appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but before that court could hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the country, mooting any remaining appeals.

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015 held that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, invalidating the ban on same-sex marriage in the U.S. state of Louisiana. The ruling clarified conflicting court rulings on whether Louisiana officials are obligated to license same-sex marriages. Governor Bobby Jindal confirmed on June 28 that Louisiana would comply with the ruling once the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its decision in a Louisiana case, which the Fifth Circuit did on July 1. Jindal then said the state would not comply with the ruling until the federal District Court reversed its judgment, which it did on July 2. All parishes now issue marriage licenses in accordance with federal law.

TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the discovery rule does not apply to the two-year statute of limitations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Little Tucker Act, which provides jurisdiction to federal courts for certain claims brought against the federal government, does not apply to lawsuits brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, 566 U.S. 221 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the limitation period for insider trading claims. The court ruled in an 8-0 unanimous opinion that the limitation period was subject to traditional equitable tolling. Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself from the case.

Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U.S. 442 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the statute of limitations for filing civil penalty actions initiates when the offending act is committed or finished. The Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit against Bruce Alpert and Marc Gabelli of Gabelli Funds, LLC, alleging the firm made secret agreements with Headstart Advisers Ltd concerning Headstart's investment in a mutual fund managed by Gabelli. Headstart realized large profits at the expense of Gabelli's remaining investors, and the SEC argued that Gabelli's actions violated the Investment Advisers Act. Gabelli and Alpert sought dismissal of the case, arguing the SEC lawsuit came after the five year statute of limitations expired. In response, the SEC argued that under the discovery rule, the statute had not expired when the case was filed.

Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that found that a law which only applied to a specific case, identified by docket number, and eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised does not violate the separation of powers in the United States Constitution between the legislative (Congress) and judicial branches of government. The plaintiffs in the trial court, respondents in the Supreme Court, were several parties who had obtained judgments against Iran for its role in supporting state-sponsored terrorism, particularly the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, and sought execution against a bank account in New York held, through European intermediaries, on behalf of Bank Markazi, the state-owned Central Bank of Iran. The initial plaintiffs obtained court orders preventing the transfer of funds from the account in 2008 and initiated their lawsuit in 2010. Bank Markazi raised several defenses against the execution against the account, including that the account was not an asset of the bank, but rather an asset of its European intermediary, under both New York state property law and §201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. In response to concerns that existing laws were insufficient for the account to be used to settle the judgments, Congress included a section within a 2012 bill, codified after enactment as 22 U.S.C. § 8772, that identified the pending lawsuit by docket number, applied only to the assets in the identified case, and essentially abrogated every legal basis available to Bank Markazi to prevent the plaintiffs from executing their claims against the account. Bank Markazi then argued that § 8772 was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government, because it effectively directed a particular result in a single case without changing the generally applicable law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and cleared the way for the plaintiffs to execute their judgments against the account, which held about $1.75 billion in cash.

Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified when litigants are entitled to equitable tolling of a statute of limitations. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that the plaintiff in this case was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because they did not demonstrate that "extraordinary circumstances" prevented the timely filing of the lawsuit.

Jam v. International Finance Corp., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Supreme Court ruled that international organizations, such as the World Bank Group's financing arm, the International Finance Corporation, could be sued in US federal courts for conduct arising from their commercial activities. It specifically held that international organizations shared the same sovereign immunity as foreign governments. This was a reversal from existing jurisprudence, which held that international organizations had near-absolute immunity from lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the International Organizations Immunities Act.

McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that the 3-year statute of limitations for a fabrication of evidence civil lawsuit under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act begins to run when the criminal case ends in the plaintiff's favor.

Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882,, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. However, establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome, they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the end result of the employment decision.

Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act with its 2008 amendments, whether plaintiffs in federal lawsuits against foreign countries may seek punitive damages for cause of actions prior to enactment of the amended law, with the specific case dealing with victims and their families from the 1998 United States embassy bombings. The Court ruled unanimously in May 2020 that punitive damages can be sought from foreign nations in such cases for preenactment conduct.

Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of robocalls made to cell phones, a practice that had been banned by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), but which exemptions had been made by a 2015 amendment for government debt collection. The case was brought by political groups that desired to use robocalls to make political ads, challenging the exemption unconstitutionally favored debt collection speech over political speech. The Supreme Court, in a complex plurality decision, ruled on July 6, 2020, that the 2015 amendment to the TCPA did unconstitutionally favor debt collection speech over political speech and violated the First Amendment.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Rotkiske v. Klemm,No. 18-328 , 589 U.S. ___(2019).
  2. 1 2 Rotkiske v. Klemm, 890F.3d422 ( 3d Cir. 2018).
  3. ↑ Adler, Jonathan (2019-12-10). "Justice Thomas Beats Out Justice Ginsburg for First Signed Opinion of OT 2019". The Volokh Conspiracy. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Saltz, Heather (2019-10-16). "Justices Scratch Heads About When Clock Pauses for FDCPA Suits". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Ryan, Tim (2019-12-10). "High Court Clears Debt Collector on Long-Delayed Suit". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D'Onfro, Danielle (2019-10-10). "Argument preview: A conflict between plain text and background rules". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  7. ↑ D'Onfro, Danielle (2019-10-18). "Argument analysis: "Not a paragon of clarity"". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  8. ↑ Strawbridge, Kimberly; Rubin, Jordan; Saltz, Heather (2019-12-10). "Justices Rule for Creditor in 'Sewer Service' Debt Dispute" . Retrieved 2019-12-10.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  9. ↑ Rotkiske v. Klemm, No.15-cv-3638 ( E.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2016).
  10. 1 2 Kaplinsky, Alan; Culhane, John; Jackman, Stefanie; Willis, Christopher (2018-05-17). "Third Circuit: FDCPA Statute of Limitations Runs From Occurrence, Not Discovery, of Alleged Violation". Ballard Spahr LLP. Retrieved 2019-12-11.
  11. ↑ Howe, Amy (2019-02-25). "One new grant and a 9th Circuit rebuke". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  12. 1 2 Ross, Jordan (2019-12-10). "Supreme Court rules debt collection lawsuit statute of limitations starts when violation occurs". Jurist.org. Retrieved 2019-12-11.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.