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

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.

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.

” 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.

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 . . .

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).

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.

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."