Second, as for Plaintiff’s claim under the Rosenthal Act, the applicable statute of limitations provides a plaintiff a year from an alleged violation to bring suit against a defendant. See CAL. CIV. PROC. § 1788.30(f). Thus, similar to the foregoing analysis, any alleged Rosenthal Act violations before May 8, 2016, would then fall outside the statute of limitations. However, in efforts to save these claims, Plaintiff urges the Court to adopt the “continuing violation doctrine.” (Doc. No. 28 at 9.) Under this doctrine, violations falling outside the statute of limitations should be treated as indivisible from the violations within the limitations period because the Defendant’s violation allegedly constituted a “continuing pattern.” (Id.) The Court finds the application of the doctrine suitable to this case. Both California and federal courts have recognized the use of the “continuing violation doctrine” in the context of Rosenthal Act claims. See Komarova v. Nat. Credit Acceptance, Inc., 175 Cal. App. 4th 324, 343 (2009) (holding violations that occurred during the continuing course of conduct of making harassing phone calls were not barred by the statute of limitations). For example, in Joseph v. J.J. Mac Intyre Companies, L.L.C., the court applied the continuing violation doctrine to Rosenthal Act violations outside the statute of limitations period to conduct such as “repeated harassing phone calls” and “a phone call at midnight” to collect a consumer debt. Joseph v. J.J. Mac Intyre Companies, L.L.C., 281 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1161 (N.D. Cal. 2003). The court stated that to determine whether actions form a continuing violation, the key is to ascertain whether the conduct complained of constituted 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]’…and the entire course of conduct is at issue.” Id. Here, because the calls made to Plaintiff allegedly spanned from the years 2013 to 2016, and Defendant’s conduct in placing each separate call to Plaintiff was related to the same objective of debt collection, Defendant’s behavior was sufficiently continuous to invoke the continuing violation doctrine. See id. at 1161–62 (finding a pattern of over 200 calls made to Plaintiff over a nineteen-month period to collect a debt as sufficiently continuous to apply the continuing violation doctrine). Therefore, because Plaintiff’s claim was filed within a year of June 18, 2016, the most recent Rosenthal violation, the entire course of Defendant’s conduct at issue is properly within the limitations period.
The District Court also found that the Plaintiff’s negligence claim could not survive due to the absence of any duty owed by the debt collector to the debtor.