Ireland-Gordy v. Tile, Inc.
3:23-cv-04119
N.D. Cal.Aug 6, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs are stalking victims alleging they were tracked using location devices made by Tile, Inc. and Life360 Inc., and sold in partnership with Amazon.com, Inc.
- Plaintiffs claim Tile refused to implement safety features despite knowing about the misuse of its products for stalking.
- Previous court decisions compelled arbitration for some plaintiffs’ claims against Tile; the current posture involves motions to dismiss claims and/or to stay litigation.
- The Ireland-Gordys discovered they were being tracked in March 2017, leading to their lawsuit filed in August 2023.
- The main legal question concerns whether the Ireland-Gordys’ claims are barred by statutes of limitations, and whether doctrines like continuing violation, discovery rule, or equitable tolling apply.
- The Court found the Ireland-Gordys’ claims time-barred and dismissed them without leave to amend; Broad and Doe's claims remain stayed pending arbitration and appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of Limitations | Ongoing threat makes claims timely (continuing violation) | Claims accrued in 2017, now time-barred | Claims time-barred; no facts pled to support ongoing harm |
| Applicability of Discovery Rule | Could not have discovered Tile’s culpability until 2020 | Plaintiffs knew or should have known in 2017 | Discovery rule does not apply; plaintiffs knew in 2017 |
| Equitable Tolling/Estoppel | Tile’s conduct and notice justify tolling/estoppel | No inducement or alternative claim filed; no basis for tolling | No equitable tolling/estoppel; no inducement or pursuit shown |
| Leave to Amend | Could supplement ongoing risk and Tile’s non-cooperation | Deficiencies are incurable by amendment | Leave to amend denied as futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc., 292 P.3d 871 (Cal. 2013) (defines continuing violation doctrine and accrual)
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 751 P.2d 923 (Cal. 1988) (explains when limitation period begins under discovery rule)
- San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 305 (Cal. App. 1995) (sets standard for accrual of claims)
- Elkins v. Derby, 525 P.2d 81 (Cal. 1974) (equitable tolling when plaintiff pursues other remedies first)
- Hopkins v. Dow Corning Corp., 33 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 1994) (pleading standards for delayed discovery rule)
- Battuello v. Battuello, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 548 (Cal. App. 1998) (equitable estoppel requires inducement to delay suit)