Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-328_pm02.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

5 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

raising it in his petition for certiorari.  See ante, at 7.  Gen-
erously  read,  Rotkiske  asked  whether  a  discovery  rule  of 
any kind applies to the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limita-
tions.  While hardly a  model of the deft pleader’s art,  the
petition for certiorari stated that Rotkiske did not learn of
Klemm’s  debt-collection  suit  and  default  judgment  until
long  after  their  occurrence  because  of  the  “intended  re-
service [of Klemm’s complaint] at a known incorrect address.”
Pet. for Cert. 8.  His brief on the merits in this Court noted: 
“Petitioner is not advocating that the Court adopt a gener-
ally applicable discovery rule.”  Brief for Petitioner 16, n.16. 
His reply brief was more precise: “The default judgment ob-
tained  by  [Klemm]  at  issue  in  [Rotkiske’s  FDCPA  com-
plaint] was made possible by the filing of a fraudulent Affi-
davit  of  Service.”    Reply  Brief  15.    Indeed,  the  Court 
recognizes  that  Rotkiske’s  arguments  included  “a  fraud-
specific discovery rule as an equitable doctrine.”  Ante, at 4.
  Rotkiske’s FDCPA complaint, in my view, falls comfort- 
ably within the fraud-based discovery rule’s scope.  See Brief 
for Samuel L. Bray et al. as Amici Curiae 12–14.  Rotkiske 
alleged that Klemm engaged in “sewer service”—intention-
ally serving process in a manner designed to prevent Rot-
kiske  from  learning  of  the  collection  suit.    Klemm  did  so, 
according to Rotkiske, in order to ensure that Klemm’s un-
timely suit would result in a default judgment that would
remain  undiscovered  until  time  to  oppose  that  judgment,
and  to  commence  an  FDCPA  suit,  ran  out.  Though  Rot-
kiske did not allege that “sewer service” is itself a practice
independently  proscribed  by  the  FDCPA,  such  service  is 
nonetheless  a  fraudulent  abuse  that  should  trigger  the 
fraud-based discovery rule.  See Reply Brief 15–17.

The  Government  urges  that  the  fraud-based  discovery 
rule applies only when the fraudulent conduct is itself the 
basis  for  the  plaintiff’s  claim  for  relief.    Brief  for  United 
States as Amicus Curiae 31–32.  That is not so of Rotkiske’s