Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-328_pm02.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

ROTKISKE v. KLEMM 

Syllabus 

shown that it knows how to adopt the omitted language or provision. 
See, e.g., 12 U. S. C. §3416.  Pp. 4–6.

(b) Rotkiske  cannot  rely  on  the  application  of  an  equitable,  fraud-
specific  discovery  rule  to  excuse  his  otherwise  untimely  filing.  This 
Court has noted the existence of decisions applying a discovery rule in 
fraud cases, see, e.g., Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U. S. 633, 644, and 
has  characterized  these  decisions  as  applying  an  equity-based  doc-
trine, see, e.g., California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ 
Securities,  Inc.,  582  U. S.  ___,  ___.    Rotkiske,  however,  neither  pre-
served this issue before the Third Circuit nor raised it in his petition 
for certiorari.  Pp. 6–7. 

890 F. 3d 422, affirmed. 

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., 
joined.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion.  GINSBURG, J., filed an 
opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment.