Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-328_pm02.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

4 

ROTKISKE v. KLEMM 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

at which a claim accrues, i.e., the time when the statute of 
limitations commences to run.  See Merck & Co., 559 U. S., 
at 644–645.  It is “an exception to the standard rule” that “a
claim accrues when the plaintiff has a complete and present
cause  of  action.”  Gabelli  v.  SEC,  568  U. S.  442,  448–449 
(2013)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).  Accordingly,
when a plaintiff is “injured by fraud . . . ‘the bar of the stat-
ute  does  not  begin  to  run  until  the  fraud  is  discovered.’  ” 
Holmberg,  327  U. S.,  at  397  (quoting  Bailey,  21  Wall.,  at 
348).  For example, in Exploration Co. v. United States, 247 
U. S. 435 (1918), a company had unlawfully procured land 
from the United States through a series of fraudulent trans-
actions in 1902.  Id., at 437, 438.  The parties involved in
the  transactions  successfully  concealed  the  scheme  until
1909.  Ibid.  When the Government brought suit to void the
transactions,  the  company  raised  the  six-year  statute  of
limitations as a defense.  Id., at 445.  Applying the fraud-
based discovery rule, the Court held that the limitations pe-
riod began to run only upon the Government’s discovery of 
the fraud.  Id., at 449.  The suit was filed within six years
of that date and was therefore timely.  Ibid. 

I  do  not  agree  that  Rotkiske  failed  to  preserve  a  fraud-
based discovery rule argument in the Court of Appeals.  See 
ante, at 7.  Rotkiske did raise the issue; he argued that “[a]t 
the  very  least, . . . the  discovery  rule  applies  to  [FDCPA]
claims based on false or misleading misrepresentations or 
other self-concealing conduct.”  Supp. Brief for Appellant in
No.  16–1668  (CA3),  p.13  (citing  Bailey,  21  Wall.,  at  350).
The Court of Appeals apparently declined to address that 
argument  because  Rotkiske  had  failed  to  raise  “equitable
tolling” in his appellate briefs.  890 F. 3d 422, 428–429, and 
n. 5  (CA3  2018).  But  failure  to  raise  “equitable  tolling” 
should pose no obstacle to determining whether the discrete
fraud-based discovery rule applies to Rotkiske’s claim. 

Nor  do  I  agree  that  Rotkiske  forfeited  the  issue  by  not