Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Another FDCPA Case: Can the "Discovery Rule" Enlarge the Act's One-Year Statute of Limitations?
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the Third Circuit’s decision in Rotkiske v. Klemm, 890 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2018), where that court held that the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations is not subject to enlargement by the “discovery rule.” Under the discovery rule, a court-made doctrine, the statute of limitations for certain claims does not begin to run until a plaintiff becomes aware of the injury giving rise to the claim. The Third Circuit’s Rotkiske decision is at odds with decisions in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.
My longer summary of the Rotkiske case and its implications for debt collectors and others affected by the FDCPA is available as a guest column on InsideARM.
The high court agreed to hear the case at its Feb. 22 conference and announced its decision this morning.
The court today also denied a request to review the Second Circuit’s decision in Huebner v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 897 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2018). That petition sought clarity on the process used by consumers to dispute a debt, including the effect of different forms (oral versus written) of consumer notice of a dispute; whether debt collectors must treat a debt as disputed if they “know or should know” that a consumer disputes a debt; and whether a consumer must provide grounds for disputing a debt.