In Wright v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., 2011 WL 500798 (N.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Armstrong held that the Rosenthal Act’s incorporation of federal law did not confer federal question jurisdiction, explaining:

Even assuming that Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action incorporates provisions of the FDCPA, relevant authority provides that federal question jurisdiction cannot be premised on that basis. See Ortega v. HomEq Servicing, 2010 WL 383368, at *5 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 25, 2010) (stating that “[a]lthough [plaintiff’s] RFDCPA claim references federal statutes that are part of the FDCPA, such references are inevitable as the California legislature incorporated portions of the FDCPA into its law,” and “[s]ince 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”); Cable v. Protection One, Inc ., 2009 WL 2970111, at * 1 (C.D.Cal. Sept. 9, 2009) (“To whatever extent the RFDCPA imports elements of the FDCPA, it remains a state claim, and does not invoke federal question jurisdiction.”); see also Britz v. Cowan, 192 F.3d 1101, 1103 (7th Cir.1999) (“[A] state cannot expand federal jurisdiction by deciding to copy a federal law.”).


See also Murphy v. Triad (