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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PARKRIDGE LIMITED and MABEL 

MAK,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INDYZEN, INC. and PRAVEEN NARRA 

KUMAR,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-07387-JSW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS

Re: Dkt. No. 141

Now before the Court is the motion to dismiss the counterclaims filed by Defendants 

Indyzen, Inc. and Praveen Narra Kumar pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The 

Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and 

for the reasons set forth below, the Court HEREBY GRANTS the motion to dismiss the 

counterclaims.

The facts and procedural background of this matter are well-known to the parties and shall 

not be repeated here. The arbitration proceeding in May 2019 adjudicated the claims at issue and 

the Court now finds that the counterclaims are barred by the effect of collateral estoppel of the 

lengthy arbitration decision. In opposing the motion, Plaintiffs concede that their counterclaims 

II, IV, V, VI, and VII were already litigated and were merely alleged to preserve the claims. (See

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 168 Filed 12/04/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 151, Opp. Br. at 7.) Accordingly, those claims are dismissed.

With regard to claims related to an alleged breach of fiduciary duty, the first and third 

counts in the counterclaims, these claims were comprehensively litigated and resolved in 

arbitration. The claims of fiduciary duty are predicated upon issues that were clearly resolved in 

arbitration relating to the claims of aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. Accordingly, 

those claims are dismissed.

With regard to counts VIII and IX, Plaintiffs alleged claims for tortious interference with 

contractual relations and tortuous interference with prospective economic advantage. However, it 

is clear from the record that these counts cannot be sustained as at all relevant times, Defendant 

Praveen Narra was an officer of the Plaintiff Parkridge Limited and not a third party with 

regarding to Parkridge’s contract with TIBCO. “The tort duty not to interfere with the contract 

falls only on strangers – interlopers who have no legitimate interest in the scope or course of the 

contract’s performance.” Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal. 4th 503, 514 

(1994). “It is also well established that corporate agents and employees acting for and on behalf of 

a corporation cannot be held liable for inducing a breach of the corporation’s contract.” 

Shoemaker v. Myers, 52 Cal. 3d 1, 24 (1990). The Court finds that the arbitration decision, relying 

upon such affirmative factual findings, precludes Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claims. 

Accordingly, those claims are dismissed. 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2020

______________________________________

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 168 Filed 12/04/20 Page 2 of 2