McCullough v. Maximum Title Loans LLC

8 Citing cases

  1. MacDonald v. Brian Gubernick PLLC

    No. CV-20-00138-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. Nov. 8, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Courts in this district recognize that a “telltale” pause after a plaintiff picks up a call makes it plausible for pleading purposes that an autodialer, as defined by the TCPA, was used. See Winters v. Quicken Loans Inc., No. CV-20-00112-PHX-MTL, 2020 WL 5292002, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 4, 2020); see also McCullough v. Maximum Title Loans LLC, No. CV-19-00717-PHX-JJT, 2019 WL 3933754, at *3 (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2019). B. Leave to Amend

  2. Douglas v. TD Bank U.S.

    3:20-cv-395-JR (D. Or. Oct. 4, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    The “telltale pause” is the brief silence after an individual answers the phone and before the dialing system transfers the call to a live agent. McCullough v. Maximum Title Loans LLC, 2019 WL 3933754, at *3 (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2019). Defendants argue that after the Supreme Court's decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, the “telltale pause” no longer permits the plausible inference that the dialing system violates the TCPA.

  3. Jovanovic v. SRP Invs.

    No. CV-21-00393-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz. Sep. 14, 2021)   Cited 4 times

    This Court has “acknowledged ‘the difficulty a plaintiff faces in knowing the type of calling system used without the benefit of discovery' and . . . that courts can infer the use of an ATDS from the details of the call.” McCullough v. Maximum Title Loans LLC, 2019 WL 3933754, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2019) (internal citations omitted). However, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to allow the Court to “reasonably infer” that Defendant used an ATDS.

  4. Douglas v. TD Bank U.S.

    3:20-cv-00395-JR (D. Or. Aug. 11, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    McCullough v. Maximum Title Loans LLC, 2019 WL 3933754, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2019). The “telltale” pause along with calls made to a consumer after the consumer requested the creditor stop calling plausibly asserts a claim under the TCPA.

  5. Jance v. Homerun Offer LLC

    No. CV-20-00482-TUC-JGZ (D. Ariz. Jul. 29, 2021)   Cited 6 times
    In Jance v. Homerun Offer LLC, No. CV-20-482, 2021 WL 3270318 (D. Ariz. July 30, 2021), the court held that calls to the plaintiff's cell phone seeking to determine his interest in selling his home, and not to induce a purchase by the plaintiff, were neither telemarketing nor solicitation.

    Furthermore, “the use of pre-recorded messages or artificial voices for purposes of solicitation are not required for equipment to be an ATDS under the TCPA.” McCullough v. Maximum Title Loans LLC, CV-19-00717-PHX-JJT, 2019 WL 3933754, at *3 (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2019). The Supreme Court clarified that equipment does not fall outside the ATDS definition simply because it may rely on human intervention: “But all devices require some human intervention . . .

  6. Gulden v. Liberty Home Guard LLC

    No. CV-20-02465-PHX-JZB (D. Ariz. Feb. 23, 2021)   Cited 4 times
    Rejecting same argument and finding similar allegations sufficient to survive motion to dismiss

    This Court has "acknowledged the difficulty a plaintiff faces in knowing the type of calling system without the benefit of discovery." McCullough v. Maximum Title Loans LLC, 2019 WL 3933754, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2019). See also Schick v. Compass Lending Corp., 2019 WL 6050256, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2019).

  7. Winters v. Quicken Loans Inc.

    No. CV-20-00112-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz. Sep. 4, 2020)   Cited 4 times

    Indeed, "courts within the Ninth Circuit have acknowledged the difficulty a plaintiff faces in knowing the type of calling system used without the benefit of discovery." McCullough v. Maximum Title Loans LLC, No. CV-19-00717-PHX-JJT, 2019 WL 3933754, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2019). Accordingly, at the motion to dismiss stage, courts can "infer the use of an ATDS from the details of the call." Id.

  8. Schick v. Compass Lending Corp.

    No. CV-19-01736-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2019)   Cited 3 times

    In a previous case, this Court "acknowledged 'the difficulty a plaintiff faces in knowing the type of calling system used without the benefit of discovery' and . . . that courts can infer the use of an ATDS from the details of the call." McCullough v. Maximum Title Loans LLC, 2019 WL 3933754, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2019) (internal citations omitted). Multiple courts in the Ninth Circuit have found that "general allegations [of the use of an ATDS] are sufficiently bolstered by specific descriptions of the 'telltale' pause after the plaintiff picked up each call . . . which suggests the use of a predictive dialing system, and thus renders plausible the conclusory allegation that an ATDS was used."