1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -

INDYZEN, INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF

Mark R. Figueiredo, Esq. (State Bar No. 178850)

Christopher G. Addy, Esq. (State Bar No. 256044)

Austin T. Jackson, Esq. (State Bar No. 312698)

STRUCTURE LAW GROUP, LLP

1754 Technology Drive, Suite 135

San Jose, California 95110

Telephone: (408) 441-7500

Facsimile: (408) 441-7501

Attorneys for INDYZEN, INC. and PRAVEEN NARRA KUMAR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PARKRIDGE LIMITED, a Hong Kong 

Corporation, by Mabel Mak and MABEL 

MAK, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INDYZEN, INC., a California Corporation,

and PRAVEEN NARRA KUMAR, an 

individual

Defendants.

CASE NO. 16-CV-07387-JSW

INDYZEN, INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF

Final Pretrial Conference: February 7, 2022

Trial Date: February 28, 2022

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Dept.: Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor

Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White

INDYZEN, INC., a California Corporation,

Counter-Claimant,

v.

PARKRIDGE LIMITED, a Hong Kong 

Corporation and RANDY GENE 

DOBSON, an individual,

Counter-Defendants.

Pursuant to the Guidelines for Trial and Final Pretrial Conference in Civil Bench Cases 

Before the Honorable Jeffrey S. White, Indyzen, Inc. hereby presents its Trial Brief.

This case arises from a failed business software venture. The facts are well developed, and 

multiple issues have been fully adjudicated in Arbitration. 

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 212 Filed 01/24/22 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

INDYZEN, INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF

On August 19, 2019, Arbitrator, Gary L. Benton, signed and issued a Final Award (“Final 

Award”) awarding Counter-Claimant Indyzen, Inc. (“Indyzen”) declaratory judgment as well as 

$678,825.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs, assessed jointly and severally against Parkridge and 

Mabel Mak.1 “The Award does not address payments due to Indyzen as that issue is expressly 

excluded by the arbitration clause” (Id. at 5 ¶ 20) “Nevertheless, Indyzen remains free to pursue 

recovery of amounts due under the contract in court.” (Id. at 48 FN 25) On March 2, 2020, by 

Order of this Court, the Final Award was Confirmed and an additional $26,268.00 in attorney’s 

fees were awarded. (Dkt. Nos. 98 and 134) 

The findings in the Award effectively resolved liability, i.e. that Indyzen performed and 

that Parkridge breached the contract, and the only triable issues are the damages to be awarded to 

Indyzen. Some of the key findings, with citation to the Award, are set forth below.

“The Morfit Agreement was signed in late 2015 months after the project was underway 

and some of the work had already been completed and delivered.” (Id. at 4 ¶ 15) “The venture 

worked well at the start and Indyzen received compliments for its work. But Parkridge failed to 

make timely payments for the work...” (Id. ¶ 16) “...Parkridge effectively terminated the 

engagement in early 2016.” (Id. at 5 ¶ 16)

“IT IS DECLARED, as to all parties that: 

(1) The Software Development Agreement and License 

Agreement dated January 5, 2015 (“the Morfit Agreement”) 

entered into by Parkridge Limited (“Parkridge”) and 

Indyzen, Inc. (“Indyzen”) was a valid and binding 

agreement, and payment, licensing and other terms survive 

any termination; 

(2) Parkridge breached the Morfit Agreement by failing to make 

payments due, repudiating the Agreement and claiming 

ownership of the Morfit App;

///

///

///

1 The Final Award is at Dkt. No. 86-2, Gillette Decl, Exhibit A.

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 212 Filed 01/24/22 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

INDYZEN, INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF

(3) Indyzen has performed under the Morfit Agreement (and 

otherwise been excused from further performance by 

Parkridge’s2breach for failure to make payments due); 

(4) Indyzen is the owner of all Phase II and III builds of the 

Morfit App (development beginning May 16, 2015); and, 

(5) No intellectual property rights have been transferred to 

Parkridge or any other entity as to any phase of the Morfit 

App development under the terms of the Morfit Agreement.” 

(Id. at 96)

Indyzen’s damages, exclusive of interest, costs, attorney’s fees, the amounts awarded 

already which have not been paid, and the like, are three-fold: (1) $490,000 for unpaid invoices 

(Count I); (2) $550,000 per the promissory note signed by Parkridge’s CEO Randy Dobson 

(“Dobson”) on behalf of Parkridge (Count II); and (3) $360,000 for additional amounts owed by 

Parkridge (Counts IV and V). The first two categories are straightforward and supported by the 

respective invoices and promissory note. The third category warrants a brief discussion for the 

Court’s benefit.

The arrangement between Parkridge and Indyzen is that half of Indyzen’s billings would 

be invoiced and the other half would be added to a promissory note. For many months, Indyzen 

invoiced $100,000 per month and an additional $100,000 was tacked on to the promissory note. 

Then, in late 2015, the parties discussed and agreed an accommodation to Parkridge such that 

Indyzen would only invoice $80,000 per month with $120,000 being added to the promissory 

note each month. The discussion was confirmed in emails and Parkridge’s counsel prepared draft 

documents reflecting same. Dobson never objected but never signed the document. Instead, he 

allowed Indyzen to bill $80,000 for the next 3 months. The $490,000 invoice amount in Count I 

includes the 3 months of invoices at $80,000 per month. The $550,000 promissory note amount 

in Count II does not include any amount for those three months. The principal amount of 

$360,000 is therefore sought reflecting the three months at $120,000 per month. 

2 The Disposition of Applications for Modification of Award in the AAA 

arbitration proceedings AAA ICDR Case No. 01-17-0003-4918, signed and issued by Arbitrator, 

Gary L. Benton on October 8, 2019, struck the word “Indyzen’s” and incorporated in its place 

“Parkridge’s” to correct the clerical error in (3). (Dkt. No. 86-3, Gillette Decl, Exhibit B at 3)

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 212 Filed 01/24/22 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

INDYZEN, INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF

Indyzen respectfully requests this court grant the amounts owed under the Morfit 

Agreement, its attorneys’ fees, costs of suit herein, and requests further requests the court grant 

Indyzen such other relief as it deems just and proper. 

Date: January 24, 2021 STRUCTURE LAW GROUP, LLP

By: /s/ Mark. R. Figueiredo

Mark R. Figueiredo, Esq.

Attorney for INDYZEN, INC.

and PRAVEEN NARRA KUMAR

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 212 Filed 01/24/22 Page 4 of 4