Here, according to the allegations of the first amended complaints, the calls made before the filing of plaintiffs’ actions on the respective dates in May 2017 reflect a continuing pattern or course of conduct on the part of defendant that are not isolated acts. All of the calls were related to the collection of a debt and were made in a similar harassing and persistent manner. Thus, any injuries that were incurred before the respective dates in May 2015 fall within the statute of limitations period with respect to state law negligence claims. Likewise, any injuries that were incurred by plaintiffs before the respective dates in May 2016 fall within the statute of limitations period for bringing claims under California’s Rosenthal Act. See, e.g., Komarova, 175 Cal. App. at 343, 345 (finding that the continuing violations doctrine applied to all the violations that occurred “prior to October 12, 2005—one year before the complaint was filed.”). Applying the continuing violation doctrine, the court finds that plaintiffs’ state law claims as presented in their first amended complaints are not time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, defendant’s motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims on untimeliness grounds will be denied.