In Provo v. Rady Childrens Hospital-San Diego, 2016 WL 4625556, at *2 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Miller dismissed a Rosenthal Act claim with leave to amend because the Plaintiffs had not pleaded any concrete injury under Spokeo. 

Here, the only harm Plaintiffs plead is in reference to phone calls made by CMRE’s codefendant, Rady, which Plaintiffs allege caused “undue stress, anxiety, and frustration….” (Doc. No. 5 ¶ 22.) As to CMRE, however, while Plaintiffs allege that CMRE violated the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act by sending the January 2, 2015, letter, nowhere in the FAC do they plead any harm or material risk of harm that they suffered as a consequence. (See Doc. No. 5 ¶¶ 27-29, 39-40, 44-45.) Plaintiffs failed to allege an injury that “actually exist[ed]” and that affected them “in a personal and individual way.” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548. Though Plaintiffs state in their opposition to CMRE’s motion that unsophisticated debtors may face harm as a result of receiving this sort of letter, they did not plead in the FAC that they themselves suffered this type of harm. Consequently, Plaintiffs did not meet their burden.  In sum, because Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead injury in fact resulting from CMRE’s alleged statutory violation, the court dismisses the FAC. The court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend, however. If justified, Plaintiffs may file within fourteen days of this order a fully integrated Second Amended Complaint that properly alleges the injury they suffered on account of receiving the January 2, 2015, letter.