In Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc. 2009 WL 1803263 (2009), the California Court of Appeal held that the litigation privilege does not provide a defense to a Rosenthal Act claim, and applied the “continuing violation” doctrine to allow recovery for violations of the Act that occurred beyond the statute of limitations. 


As to the litigation privilege, the Court of Appeal followed the reasoning set forth in the federal decision of Oei v. N. Star Capital Acquisitions, L.L.C. 486 F.Supp.2d 1089, 1098-1101 (C.D.Cal.2006). As to the continuing violation doctrine, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s determination that


. . . defendant’s statute of limitations defense was overcome by the continuing violation doctrine, which permits recovery “for actions that take place outside the limitations period if these actions are sufficiently linked to unlawful conduct within the limitations period [.]” (Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798, 812, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 87, 29 P.3d 175.) “The key is whether the conduct complained of constitutes a continuing pattern and course of conduct as opposed to unrelated discrete acts. If there is a pattern, then the suit is timely if ‘the action is filed within one year of the most recent [violation]’ [citation], and the entire course of conduct is at issue.”(Joseph v. J.J. Mac Intyre Companies, L.L.C. (N.D.Cal.2003) 281 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1161 (Joseph).)