Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-328_pm02.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

Cite as:  589 U. S. ____ (2019) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

statute  of  limitations  in  fraud  actions,  and  that  he  has 
pleaded (or could plead) a claim within the scope of this doc-
trine.  This Court has noted the existence of decisions ap-
plying a discovery rule in “fraud cases” that is distinct from
the  traditional  equitable  tolling  doctrine.  Merck  &  Co.  v. 
Reynolds,  559  U. S.  633,  644  (2010);  Gabelli  v.  SEC,  568 
U. S.  442,  450  (2013)  (referring  to  the  “fraud  discovery 
rule”).  And it has repeatedly characterized these decisions
as  applying  an  equity-based  doctrine.  California  Public 
Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., 582 
U. S. ___, ___–___ (2017) (slip op., at 10–11); Lozano v. Mon-
toya Alvarez, 572 U. S. 1, 10–11 (2014); Credit Suisse Secu-
rities  (USA)  LLC  v.  Simmonds,  566  U. S.  221,  226–227 
(2012); Young v. United States, 535 U. S. 43, 49–50 (2002). 
Rotkiske failed to preserve this issue before the Third Cir-
cuit, 890 F. 3d, at 428, and failed to raise this issue in his 
petition for certiorari.  Accordingly, Rotkiske cannot rely on 
this doctrine to excuse his otherwise untimely filing.3 

* 
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of

* 

* 

Appeals is affirmed. 

It is so ordered. 

—————— 

3 We do not decide whether the text of 15 U. S. C. §1692k(d) permits 
the application of equitable doctrines or whether the claim raised in this
case falls within the scope of the doctrine applied in Bailey and its prog-
eny.