In Miller v. Yellow Pages, et. al., 2018 WL 2329716 (S.D.Cal.), 2 (S.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court found that California’s Rosenthal Act does not itself create federal jurisdiction merely because it incorporates federal law.
Further, Plaintiff’s state law claims do not raise a federal issue sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction. The “mere presence” of the FDCPA in a state law cause of action “does not automatically confer federal question jurisdiction.” Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 813. Plaintiff brings a cause of action under the Rosenthal Act. The California state legislature incorporated provisions of the FDCPA in the Rosenthal Act. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17; Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, 681 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2012); Gates v. MCT Grp., Inc., 93 F. Supp. 3d 1182, 1192 (S.D. Cal. 2015). 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. See, e.g., Arzaga v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 16-CV-2505 AJB (WVG), 2016 WL 6698954, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016); Olson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 961 F. Supp. 2d 1149, 1150 n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2013); Ortega v. HomEq Servicing, No. CV 09-02130MMM(DTBX), 2010 WL 383368, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2010); Montano v. World Wide Credit Corp., No. 08 CV 1183 JM (RBB), 2008 WL 11337015, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2008). Further, the removing Defendants have not established that Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence, breach of contract, fraud, violation of the UCL, and intentional infliction of emotional distress would necessarily raise any federal issue. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s state law claims do not necessarily raise a substantial and disputed federal issue. Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction does not provide grounds for removal1 and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.