Argument preview: A conflict between plain text and background rules

[Elderberry]

SCOTUSblog by Danielle D'Onfro 10/10/2019

On Wednesday, October 16, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Rotkiske v. Klemm, yet another case arising from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Although the FDCPA has a long history of putting fiddly questions of statutory interpretation before the justices, this case has broader implications. It forces the court to confront the question of how to read language commonly used in statutes of limitations against the background of the so-called “discovery rule.” Under the discovery rule, the limitations period for actions based on fraud only begins running when a reasonable plaintiff would have discovered the fraud.

Rotkiske accumulated and defaulted on approximately $1,200 in credit card debt. His bank, as most banks do in similar situations, sold the debt to a professional debt-collection firm, Klemm & Associates. Klemm filed two suits against Rotkiske to collect the debt. In the first, in March 2008, it attempted to serve Rotkiske at an address at which he no longer resided. An individual who did not match Rotkiske’s physical description accepted service. Rotkiske asserts that Klemm dropped that suit when it could not find his current address. Klemm filed a second collection action against Rotkiske in March 2009. It attempted service at the same address as in its 2008 case, and again, someone unknown to Rotkiske accepted service. Klemm filed an affidavit asserting that an “Adult in charge of the Defendant(s) residence” had accepted service. When Rotkiske failed to appear, the Philadelphia Municipal Court entered a default judgment against him.

Rotkiske claims that he had no notice of the 2009 proceeding and default judgment until he applied for a home mortgage in September 2014 and was denied. Nine months later, he filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that by serving the lawsuit at an address it knew was not current, Klemm made sure Rotkiske would not be properly served. In effect, Rotkiske claims that Klemm fraudulently obtained a default judgment against him in violation of the FDCPA.

More: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/argument-preview-a-conflict-between-plain-text-and-background-rules/#more-289619

[PeteS in CA]

Maybe @Jazzhead could elucidate, but, IMO, with the collection agency already knowing the address was no longer valid, the second "service" on which the default judgment was based was not valid and the collection agency committed fraud in claiming Rotkiske had been properly served. Fraudulent basis, fraudulent judgment.