Bayview contends that federal question jurisdiction exists because the Complaint refers to the FDCPA. (See Dkt. 1, NOR at 3). However, the Complaint asserts only state-law claims, including California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (“RFDPCA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788, et seq., (see Dkt. 1, Exh. 2, State-Court Complaint at ¶¶ 1-25), and the Complaint’s fleeting references to the FDCPA buried in a cause of action under the RFDCPA are insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. See Ghalehtak v. Fay Servicing, LLC, 2018 WL 2553570, *2 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (“Since the provisions are incorporated in and made part of state law, referencing the federal statute does not automatically transform [plaintiff’s] RFDCPA claim into a federal claim.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Miller v. Yellow Pages, 2018 WL 2329716, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (“Other district courts in the Ninth Circuit have concluded that a reference to the FDCPA in relation to a cause of action brought under the Rosenthal Act is insufficient to vest a district court with federal question jurisdiction.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).