Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of 1977.

It enacted regulations on the way debt collectors could conduct business, including requirements for serving notice of collection lawsuits to debtors.

Rotkiske argued that Klemm had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it filed its second lawsuit against him in 2009, after the state-law statute of limitations had expired.

Klemm responded by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing that the FDCPA provides a 1-year statute of limitations for private suits, which had long expired by 2015.

However, in his filing he argued that the doctrine of equitable tolling meant that the statute of limitations should not have begun until 2014 (when he discovered the default judgment while applying for his mortgage).

He argued that the doctrine of equitable tolling applied to his case because Klemm committed fraud by deliberately sending the notification of the 2009 lawsuit to an address that they knew was incorrect, thus depriving him of the ability to appear in court.

In March 2016 Eastern District court sided with Klemm, dismissing Rotkiske's lawsuit over the statute of limitations issue.

On December 10, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the one-year filing deadline for FDCPA lawsuits runs from the date when the alleged violation occurs.

[12] In the 8–1 majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court applied a textualist reading of the FDCPA and found that the plain language of the law was unambiguous: an FDCPA action "may be brought [...] within one year from the date on which the violation occurs", with no mention of "discovery rule" extending the deadline to file to one year after the violation was discovered by the plaintiff.

She wrote separately to challenge the majority's assertion that the discovery rule was a "bad wine of recent vintage", noting that the Supreme Court had long recognized this exception to the statutes of limitation for suits based on fraud or concealment, including Holmberg v. Armbrecht (1946), Exploration Co. v. United States (1918), and Bailey v. Glover (1875).