Opinion ID: 3189403
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statute of Limitations-Equitable Tolling

Text: The FDCPA contains a one-year statute of limitations. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). Hageman filed his federal complaint on December 19, 2013, more than one year after the Missouri trial court entered the default judgment in the underlying collection action. In his complaint, Hageman directed his allegations of misconduct broadly towards acts by Barton that occurred prior to the Missouri proceedings, during the Missouri proceedings, and during the Illinois proceedings. See, e.g., Complaint at ¶ 74.a. (“Filing multiple suits . . . .”); ¶ 74.d. (“Garnishing funds . . . .”); ¶ 74.c. (“Attempting to collect . . . inflated and illusory interest . . . and . . . costs”). Because Barton’s actions that occurred prior to entry of the Missouri judgment preceded the federal complaint by more than one year, claims based on such actions are time-barred in the absence of equitable tolling. Hageman alleges Barton’s allegedly improper Mobil Corp., we find them at odds with our own cases as cited above. We also find them generally at odds with the FDCPA itself which places restrictions on debt collectors’ conduct and includes within the definition of “debt” sums already reduced to judgment. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). Through this definition, Congress made clear its intent that the FDCPA apply to debt collectors’ abusive tactics in the collection of judgment debts. As such, it would be strange, indeed, if the Rooker-Feldman doctrine could so expeditiously insulate debt collectors from FDCPA suits alleging abusive tactics during attempted collections on judgments. -8- ongoing conduct following entry of the Missouri judgment tolls the statute of limitations. Hageman’s argument in this regard is foreclosed by Mattson v. U.S. W. Comm’ns, Inc., 967 F.2d 259 (8th Cir. 1992), in which we treated the FDCPA’s statute of limitations as jurisdictional. It is well-established, as a general matter in the Eighth Circuit, that jurisdictional limitation periods are not subject to equitable tolling. See Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460, 463 (8th Cir. 2000). Hageman nonetheless argues that we may ignore Mattson because the court in Mattson did not give extensive treatment to the question of the jurisdictional nature of the FDCPA’s statute of limitations and did not address the jurisdictional/non-jurisdictional nature of the FDCPA’s limitation provision for purposes of applying equitable tolling. Hageman misconstrues our duty to follow a prior panel. Our duty is not governed by the length or depth of the prior panel’s treatment of an issue. Rather, it is governed by whether the cases are materially distinguishable and whether the prior panel’s treatment of the issue resulted in a holding or mere dicta. As such, we decline Hageman’s invitation to disregard Mattson. In Mattson, a plaintiff filed an FDCPA action against a debt collector one year and one day after the last actionable conduct by the debt collector. Mattson, 967 F.2d at 261. The court faced the question of whether the date of the last act was the date to be used for measuring the one-year limitations period or whether, as with many date calculations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the day immediately following the last act should be treated as “day one” in the count. The court held the “next day” rule from the Federal Rules did not apply because the Federal Rules do not apply unless and until jurisdiction is established. Id. at 262. In so holding, the court captioned its discussion “Jurisdiction” and referred to jurisdiction several times. Id. at 260–62 (“[section] 1692k(d) is a jurisdictional statute -9- . . . [adding the extra day would] extend the jurisdiction of federal courts . . . We are not at liberty to disregard the jurisdictional limitations Congress has placed upon the federal courts, however appealing it might be to interpret section 1692k(d) in such a way as to permit Mattson’s action to proceed”). Hageman is correct that the panel in Mattson did not explain its conclusion that the statute of limitations was jurisdictional. Still, the court clearly held that the limitation was jurisdictional, and the references to the jurisdictional nature of the limitation were not mere dicta. See Moore v. United States, 173 F.3d 1131, 1134 (8th Cir. 1999) (“We declined to apply Rule 6(a) in Mattson because the statute of limitations in the FDCPA was jurisdictional, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 82 prevents the use of the Rules of Civil Procedure to extend the jurisdiction of district courts.”). Because equitable tolling does not apply, all of Hageman’s FDCPA claims directed towards conduct that preceded the Illinois proceedings are time barred.