In Dollaga v. Specialized Loan Servicing Llc, No. 20-cv-07472-JSC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233610 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2020), Magistrate Judge Corley remanded a Rosenthal Act claim for wont of federal question jurisdiction.
Plaintiff’s complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) intentional interference with contract; (4) unfair business practices, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; (5) fraud; (6) negligence; (7) false promise; (8) negligent misrepresentation; and (9) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (Dkt. No. 1-1.) Defendants’ Notice of Removal contends that federal question exists because “the complaint alleges claims for relief that arise under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.” (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 4.) [*6] Defendants do not specify which claim, but the parties agree that Defendants are referring to Plaintiff’s Rosenthal Act claim which does refer to the FDCPA—the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 153, 156, 157.) While “[t]he Rosenthal Act mimics or incorporates by reference the FDCPA’s requirements and makes available the FDCPA’s remedies for violations,” see Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, 681 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2012), courts in the Ninth Circuit have consistently rejected the argument that mere reference to the FDCPA in the context of a Rosenthal Act claim confers federal question jurisdiction. See Ghalehtak v. Fay Serv. LLC, No. 18-cv-02306-PJH, 2018 WL 2553570, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2018) (collecting cases); see also Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 674-75 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding action was not removable on federal question grounds where complaint referenced violations of the FDCPA only in the context of its claim under Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act). Defendants have not cited any cases finding otherwise and this Court finds that the district court caselaw on this issue is on point and persuasive, especially given that the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” See Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d at 1087. Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction does not exist and thus subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.