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 REPLY TO OPPOSITION FOR EXTENSION TO SERVE SUMMONS 

Mark R. Figueredo, Esq. (SBN 178850)

mrf@structurelaw.com

Christopher G. Addy, Esq. (SBN 256044)

caddy@structurelaw.com

Austin T. Jackson, Esq. (SBN 312698) 

ajackson@structurelaw.com 

STRUCTURE LAW GROUP, LLP

1754 Technology Drive, Suite 135

San Jose, CA 95110

Telephone: (408) 441-7500

Facsimile: (408) 441-7501

Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant

INDYZEN, INC. and Defendant 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,

vs.

INDYZEN, INC., a California corporation, and 

PRAVEEN NARRA KUMAR, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No.: 4:16-cv-07387-JSW

Hon. Jeffrey S. White

COUNTER-CLAIMANT INDYZEN, INC.’S

REPLY TO OPPOSITION FOR 

EXTENSION TO SERVE SUMMONS 

Date: , 2020

Time 9:00 a.m.

Dept.: Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor

Counter-Claim Filed: May 7, 2020

INDYZEN, INC., a California corporation,

Counter-Claimant, 

vs. 

PARKRIDGE LIMITED, a Hong Kong 

corporation and RANDY GENE DOBSON an 

individual,

Counter-Defendants. 

Counter-Claimant Indyzen, Inc., (“Indyzen”) hereby submits its Reply in support of its 

Motion For Extension to Serve Summons. 

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 163 Filed 09/24/20 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 REPLY TO OPPOSITION FOR EXTENSION TO SERVE SUMMONS 

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 3, 2020 Indyzen filed its Motion For Extension to Serve Summons on 

Counter-Defendant Randy Gene Dobson (Dkt. 159). As set forth in the moving papers, Dobson is 

on full notice of this Counter-Claim and as such, no prejudice will occur in granting this Motion. 

Indyzen has acted diligently in attempting to locate Dobson and effectuate service of process, and 

continues to do so, but to date has been unsuccessful. In this Reply to Dobson’s Opposition, 

Indyzen reiterates the information and arguments set forth in the moving papers, and offers the 

additional argument as follows: 

II. ARGUMENT

A. Claims Against Dobson Are Not Moot

Indyzen’s Counter-Claim against Dobson for Counts 1 (Breach of Contract), Count 2 

(Account Stated), Count 4 (Breach of Oral Contract) and Count 5 (Promissory Estoppel) are all still 

active claims. In his moving papers, Dobson alleges that all claims against him are moot based on 

his interpretation of Dkt. 155, this Court’s Order relating to Dobson’s (second) Motion to Dismiss. 

(See Opposition, Dkt. 161 at p. 2 ¶¶ 9-15) However, this Court’s Order does not dispel of the entire 

action against Dobson. (See Dkt. 155) The Order clearly states “... Counter-Defendant Randy 

Dobson’s Motion to Dismiss Count 3 are GRANTED with leave to amend. (See below.)”. (id., at 

¶¶ 1-3, emphasis added). The relevant text set forth below Honorable Jeffrey White’s signature 

block reads as follows: “Defendant and counter-claimant Indyzen, Inc. may file an amended 

counterclaim for fraud by no later than September 14, 2020 to allege sufficient facts for the Court 

to adjudicate whether any fraud claim may proceed.” (id., at ¶¶ 9-12) It further states in relevant 

part, “Should Indyzen, Inc. elect to file an amended counterclaim for fraud and the Court 

determine that it fails to comply with this order, the Court shall consider levying sanction in addition 

to dismissal without leave to amend”. (id., at ¶¶ 22 – 24, emphasis added) Accordingly, the only 

Count dismissed against Dobson is Count 3 (Fraud). Indyzen has elected to forgo Count 3 for fraud 

and pursue the remaining Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5 not previously dismissed. Thus, the claims against 

Dobson are not moot.

///

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 163 Filed 09/24/20 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 REPLY TO OPPOSITION FOR EXTENSION TO SERVE SUMMONS 

B. This Court Has Already Ruled On The Personal Jurisdiction Issues Raised

Dobson continues to allege that no personal jurisdiction exists. However, as stated in prior 

pleadings, and as previously adjudicated by this Court, Personal Jurisdiction does exist and is set 

forth in this Court’s April 13, 2018 Order Granting Petition To Compel Arbitration And Denying 

Motions To Dismiss. (Dkt. 63). “The Court further finds that it may properly exercise jurisdiction 

over the Dobson Companies. These companies are closely associated with Randy Dobson and, by 

signing the [Morfit] Agreement to perform the subject work in California, he is properly 

subjected to the jurisdiction of this Court. (Id. at 2:21–24; Emphasis added) 

The facts and circumstances of this issue, already adjudicated, are set forth in great detail in 

Indyzen’s Reply brief pertaining to its originally filed motion to compel arbitration (Reply Brief at 

Dkt. 54 at p 4 line 19 - p 6 line 25). There, Consent and Minimum Contacts were plead with 

sufficient detail allowing this Court to enter Dkt., 63, finding personal jurisdiction and compelling 

Dobson to Arbitration. Further evidencing his consent, Dobson participated in the Arbitration in 

California as reflected in the Final Award. The Arbitration was not just limited to Parkridge but 

addressed claims asserted against Dobson personally as well. 

That Dobson participated in the Arbitration in California to address claims involving him 

personally is itself a sufficient contact to support a finding of personal jurisdiction. Dobson cannot 

be allowed to pick and choose when he wants to enter California to resolve claims against him and 

when he doesn’t. Likewise, Indyzen’s fourth and fifth counter-claims allege facts sufficient to 

demonstrate personal jurisdiction. (See Dkt. 124 at ¶¶ 55-56, 67-68). It was always clear that 

Indyzen was located in California. Clearly any subsequent contracts and promises made with an 

individual and corporate entity in California, all provide further evidence of Dobson’s conduct 

reaching into the forum State, and thus conferring this Court’s jurisdiction over him. 

III. CONCLUSION

Indyzen continues in its diligent effort to effectuate service on Dobson so it may pursue the 

remaining counts in its counter-claim. Dobson continues to flout this Court’s authority, and reach, 

raising the same previously adjudicated arguments in support thereof. Dobson has full and fair 

notice of these proceedings, through counsel, and rather than appear and defend this action, he 

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 163 Filed 09/24/20 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 REPLY TO OPPOSITION FOR EXTENSION TO SERVE SUMMONS 

conveniently uses his international status and financial means as an escape. For reasons set forth 

in its moving papers, and above, Indyzen respectfully requests the Court grant this motion. 

DATED: September 24, 2020 STRUCTURE LAW GROUP, LLP

By: /s/ Christopher G. Addy

Mark R. Figueredo, Esq. 

Christopher G. Addy, Esq. 

Austin T. Jackson, Esq. 

Attorneys for Defendants and 

Counter-Claimants INDYZEN, INC. and 

Defendant PRAVEEN NARRA KUMAR

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 163 Filed 09/24/20 Page 4 of 4