|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-328||3d Cir.||Oct 16, 2019||Dec 10, 2019||8-1||Thomas||OT 2019|
Holding: Absent the application of an equitable doctrine, the statute of limitations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d), begins to run when the alleged FDCPA violation occurs, not when the violation is discovered.
Judgment: Affirmed, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on December 10, 2019. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 09 2018||Application (18A161) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 13, 2018 to October 12, 2018, submitted to Justice Alito.|
|Aug 15 2018||Application (18A161) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until September 12, 2018.|
|Sep 11 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 15, 2018)|
|Oct 31 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/16/2018.|
|Nov 05 2018||Response Requested. (Due December 5, 2018)|
|Nov 21 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 5, 2018 to January 4, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 23 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 4, 2019.|
|Jan 04 2019||Brief of respondents Paul Klemm, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jan 23 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.|
|Feb 19 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.|
|Feb 25 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Mar 08 2019||Joint motion of the parties for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Mar 19 2019||Joint motion of the parties to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits is granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 13, 2019. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 12, 2019.|
|Apr 03 2019||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Kevin Rotkiske.|
|Apr 22 2019||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|May 13 2019||Brief of petitioner Kevin Rotkiske filed.|
|May 20 2019||Brief amici curiae of Samuel L. Bray, David Marcus, and Stephen C. Yeazell in support of neither party filed.|
|May 20 2019||Amicus brief of National Consumer Law Center not accepted for filing. (May 29, 2019)(Corrected version Submitted)|
|May 20 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Consumer Law Center filed.|
|Jul 01 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 16, 2019.|
|Jul 12 2019||Brief of respondents Paul Klemm, et al. filed.|
|Jul 18 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jul 18 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Receivables Management Association International, Inc. filed.|
|Jul 19 2019||Motion of United States for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Jul 19 2019||Brief amici curiae of Mortgage Bankers Association and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Jul 19 2019||Brief amicus curiae of ACA International filed.|
|Jul 19 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The National Creditors Bar Association filed.|
|Aug 01 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Aug 12 2019||Reply of petitioner Kevin Rotkiske filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 16 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit.|
|Aug 23 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Sep 12 2019||Complete record received in electronic format (U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit and DIstrict Court filings).|
|Oct 16 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Scott E. Gant, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D. C.; and Jonathan C. Bond, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Dec 10 2019||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment.|
|Jan 13 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.