In Baker v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 2014 WL 880634 (D.Ariz. 2014), Judge Rosenblatt held that the Plaintiff adequately pleaded the use of an ATDS under the TCPA.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to support the allegation that the calls were automated or used an artificial or prerecorded voice, and omits facts about the time, length, and content of the calls. (Doc. 16 at 11–12.) Courts have held, however, that “notice pleading standards do not require a plaintiff to allege details at the pleading stage about the time and context” of every telephone call. Robinson v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 10–cv–2261–MMA(AJB), 2011 WL 1434919, at *3 (S.D.Cal. April 13, 2011) (quoting Kramer v. Autobytel, Inc., No. 10–cv–2722–CW, 2010 WL 5463116, at *6 (N.D.Cal. Dec.29, 2010)); see Mashiri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 3:12–cv–28238–L–MDD, 2013 WL 5797584, at *5 (S.D.Cal. Oct.28, 2013); Reyes v. Saxon Mortg. Services, Inc., No. 09–cv–1366–DMS(WMC), 2009 WL 3738177, at *4 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 5, 2009). The allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint are similar to those found sufficient in these cases. Therefore, the court will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count I.