The Eastern District of Pennsylvania has weighed in on when the statute of limitations begins to run with regard to FDCPA claims, holding that the discovery rule does not apply.  Rotkiske v. Klemm et al., 15-3638, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32908 (E.D.P.A. March 14, 2016).  In Rotkiske, the defendant law firm filed a collection suit in March 2008 against the plaintiff.  Service was attempted at Rotkiske’s prior address and accepted by an unrelated third party.  The lawsuit was dismissed shortly thereafter, but was refiled in January of 2009.  The defendants again attempted to serve Rotkiske at the same address, and again service was accepted by an unknown person.  The defendants obtained a default judgment against Rotkiske in the second collection suit.  Rotkiske filed suit against the collection law firm six years later asserting violations of the FDCPA and alleging that he did not discover the judgment until September 2014 when he applied for a mortgage.

The defendants moved to dismiss the FDCPA claims alleging that they were time barred.  Under the FDCPA, an action must be brought “within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.”  15 U.S.C. §1692k(d). The plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that the discovery rule required the court to calculate the statute of limitations from the date when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the violation. 

The circuit courts are currently split on the application of the discovery rule to FDCPA claims.  The Fourth and Ninth Circuit currently apply the discovery rule.  The Eighth and Eleventh Circuit have expressly rejected the application of the discovery rule to FDCPA claims.  Other circuit courts have declined to rule on its application.

In granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the district court first looked to the express language of the statute, which states the statute of limitations runs upon the “date on which the violation occurs.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d).  This language does not contemplate the knowledge of the consumer, but rather explicitly states the clock begins to run on the date the violation occurred.  Further, the Court considered public policy arguments for both sides.  The most important one in the Court’s decision was the timing of when the consumer discovered his injury.  It can be difficult to verify when a consumer discovers the violation, but it is much easier to determine when the violation actually occurred.  The Court relied on other cases, which hold that the statute of limitations period “should begin to run on the date of ‘the debt collector’s last opportunity to comply’” with the FDCPA.  Peterson v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 430 F. App’x 112, 115 (3d Cir. 2011).  In this case, the last opportunity for the defendants to comply with the FDCPA occurred in 2009 when they re-filed the lawsuit and served the individual at Rotkiske’s old address, thus making his 2015 lawsuit time barred.  The decision is a positive one for debt collectors as it limits their exposure to stale FDCPA claims.