Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-328_pm02.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

1 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–328 
_________________ 

KEVIN C. ROTKISKE, PETITIONER v. 
PAUL KLEMM, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

[December 10, 2019] 

  JUSTICE GINSBURG,  dissenting  from  the  opinion  in  part 
and from the judgment. 

  Generally,  I  agree  with  the  Court,  the  “discovery  rule” 
does  not  apply  to  the  one-year  statute  of  limitations  con-
tained in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 
15  U. S.  C.  §1692k(d).    That  limitations  period  ordinarily 
commences to run on the date “the violation occurs,” ibid.  
See TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U. S. 19, 28–33 (2001).  But 
the ordinarily applicable time trigger does not apply when 
fraud on the creditor’s part accounts for the debtor’s failure 
to sue within one year of the creditor’s violation.  Id., at 37 
(Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).  See also id., at 27 (ma-
jority opinion).   
  True, in the case at hand, debtor Rotkiske’s FDCPA claim 
does  not  rest  on  any  fraud  inhering  in  the  claim  creditor 
Klemm  stated  in  his  debt-collection  suit.    Rather,  debtor 
Rotkiske alleges that creditor Klemm commenced the debt-
collection  suit  too  late.    But  Rotkiske  was  disarmed  from 
asserting  that  defense  in  Klemm’s  suit,  for  he  never  re-
ceived notice of the suit and therefore had no opportunity 
to defend against it.  For the same reason, he was stopped