N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ANDANA D. FAR

H ANG a nd M .A. M OB ILE LTD., Plaintiffs - Appe lle e s,
v. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TEC HNOLOGY, KHAR AGPUR , a

n India n Institute of Te c hnology inc orporate d unde r the “ Institute s of Te c hnology , Ac t 1961" and PAR THA P. C HAKR AB AR TI, De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts,
a nd TEC HNOLOGY INC U B ATION AND ENTRE PR ENEUR SHIP TR AINING SOC IETY, a

n India n soc i e ty ; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts. No. 14-15601 D.C . No. 5:08-c v-02658-R M W
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R ona ld M . Whyte , Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED JUL 12 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

7, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVERM AN a n d NGUYEN, C i rc uit Judge s a nd ANELLO, ** Distric t Judge
. The India n Instituteof Te c hnology , Kha ra gpur (“ IITK” ) and Pa

rtha P. C hakra ba rti a ppe a l from

the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r de ny ing the ir m otion to dism iss pla i ntiffs’ third a

m e nde d c om

pla int pursua

nt to theFore ign Sove re ign Im m unitie s Ac t (“ FSIA” ) and c om

m o n la w fore ign offic i a l im

m unity princ iple s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r the c olla te ra l orde r doc t

rine
. Se e Te re nk

ian v
. Re public of Iraq , 694 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th C ir. 2012). W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s le ga l rulings a nd its fa c t ua l findings for c le ar e rror. Se e id. at 1132. W e a ffirm in pa

rt,
va c ate in pa

rt, a nd re m and. 1. C ontra

ry to pla intiffs’ c onte ntions, de fe nda nts’ notic e of a

ppe a l in this
c a se wa s tim e l y . While the distric t c ourt original ly de nie d IITK’ s m otion to dism iss on FSIA im

m unity grounds in 2010, tha

t m otion a

nd orde r re late d to the first a m e n de d c om

pla int in this ac t ion. Subse que nt to tha t orde r, a third a m e nde d
c om pla i nt wa s file d tha

t a dde d M obile M .A. a s a pla i ntiff a

nd inc lude d

a dditional
a lle gations. De fe nda

nts m ove d to dismi ss tha

t c om pla int a nd, whe n tha

t m otion

** The Honora

ble M ic ha e l M . Ane l lo, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 1 4
- 1 5 6 0 1 2wa s de nie d, de fe nda nts tim e ly file d the ir notic e of a

ppe a l. 2. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly de te rm ine d the “ wa ive r e xc e ption” to the FSIA a pplie d to e a c h of M .A. M obile Ltd.’ s c la i m s a ga i nst IITK. IITK im plie dly
wa ive d its im

m unity unde r the FSIA a s to the se c la im s by a gre e i ng to a nondisc losure a gre e m e nt whic h e xpre ssly provide d tha

t the la ws of the Unite d Stat e s a nd the Stat e of C a lifornia would gove rn the a gre e m e nt. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 1605(a )(1); se e also J

ose ph v . Offic e of the

C o nsulate Ge n. of N

ige ria , 830 F.2d 1018, 1022 (9th C ir. 1987) (“ [A] t the ve ry le a st it is c le ar that a

sove re i gn pa

rty ha s wa ive d im

m unity whe re a c ontra c t spe c ific ally

sta te s tha t the la ws of a jurisdic tion within theUnite d State s a re to gove rn the tra

nsa c tion.” (e m

pha sis in origina

l)). This wa ive r e xte nds to a ll of M .A. M obile ’ s c la i m s be c a use e a c h c la im arise s out of or re late s to thenondisc losure a gre e m e nt whic h form s the ba sis of IITK’ s wa ive r. Howe v e r, the distric t c ourt e rre d in e xte nding this wa ive r to e nc om

pa ss M an da na Farhang’ s individual c la im s a g a i nst IITK. Thedistric t c ourt c onc lude d that Farhang, whilenot a

pa rty to the nondisc losure a gre e m e nt, wa s none the le ss a n inte nde d third-pa

rty be ne fic ia ry of tha t a gre e m e nt be c a

use Farhang owne d M .A. M obile an d wa s e nt itle d to a ny e c onom ic be ne fit de rive d from the te c hnology
c ove re d by

the nondisc losure a gre e m e nt. The se fa c ts, howe v e r, a re insuffic ie nt to

1 4
- 1 5 6 0 1 3e sta

blish tha t Fa rha ng wa s a n inte nde d third-pa

rty be ne fic ia

ry . Se e N e v e r k ov e c v . Fre de ric k s , 74 C a l. App. 4th 337, 349 (1999) (“ [T] he fa c t tha t . . . thec ontra c t, if
c arrie d out to its te

rm s, would inure to the third pa rty ’ s be ne fit, is insuffic ie nt to
e ntitlehim or he r to de m an d e nforc e m e nt.” (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

nd c ita tion
om i tte d)); se e also C

orporac i on Me

x ic ana de Se rv ic ios, S.A. de

C .V. v . M/T Re spe c t , 89 F.3d 650, 655 (9th C ir. 1996) (“ The wa ive r e xc e ption is na rrowly
c onstrue d.” ). W e a c c ordingly v a c ate the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of IITK’ s m otion to dism iss to the

e x te nt the distric t c ourt found tha t ITTK’ s im

plie d wa ive r of im m unity e xte nde d to Fa

rhang’ s individual c la im s. B e fore the distric t c o urt, pla intiffs a lso a rgue d tha t the c o m m e rc ia l a c tivity
e xc e ption to FSIA im

m unity a pplie d. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 1605(a)(2). B e c a use it found the wa ive r e x c e ption a pplie d to a ll of the pla intiffs’ c la im s, the distric t c ourt did not c onside r the se argum e nts. B e c a u se we hold tha

t the wa ive r e xc e ption doe s not a pply to Fa rhang’ s c la im s a ga inst IITK, were m a n d with instruc t ions for the distric t c o urt to c onside r in the first insta n c e whe the r the c o m

m e rc ia l a c tivity
e xc e ption a

pplie s to he r c la i m s in light of our holding in F a rhang v . Indian Institute of Te c hnology

, K haragpur , 529 F. App’ x 812 (9th C ir. 2013). 3. The distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing C hakra

ba rti’ s m otion to dism

iss that wa s pre m ise d on c om

m on la w fore ign offic ia l im

m unity . The distric t c ourt

1 4
- 1 5 6 0 1 4c onc lude d tha t the e vide n c e subm itte d by pla intiffs sugge ste d tha t C hakra ba rti’ s

“ involve m e nt in thejoint ve nture wa s not pure ly offic i a l.” Howe ve r, pla intiffs, in the i r third a

m e nde d c om

pla int, e xpre ssly

a lle ge d tha

t de fe nda nts – inc luding C hakra ba rti – we re a c ting “within thesc ope of sa id role and/or re l ationship”with IITK. S e e Yousuf v . Samantar , 699 F.3d 763, 769 (4th C ir. 2012) (finding tha t fore ign offic ia ls a

re e ntitle d to im

m unity unde r the c om

m on la w for a c tions ta

ke n during thec ourse of the ir offic i a l dutie s). While the e vide nc e sugge s ts tha t C hakra ba rti m a y have obta ine d som e inc ide nta l individual be n e fit from his involve m e nt in thejoint ve nture this is insuffic ie nt to ne gate his offic ia l role in the transa c tion. C

f . C huidian v . Philippine

N a t’l Bank , 912 F.2d 1095, 1102 (9th C ir. 1990) , abrogate d on othe r grounds by Samantar v
. Yousuf

, 560 U.S. 305 (2010) (that a de fe nda

nt “ e xpe rie n c e d a

c onve rge nc e be twe e n

his pe rsona l inte re st a

nd his offic ia l duty

and a uthority ” doe s not “ se rve to m ake his a c tion a ny le ss a n a c tion of his sove re ign” ). Ac c ordingly

we va c ate the de nia l of C h akra ba rti’ s m otion to dism

iss the third a m e nde d c o m

pla i nt, a nd re m and with instruc tions to dism i ss pla intiffs’
c la im s a ga inst him
. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r the ir own c osts. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D in par t, and RE M ANDE D .
1 4
- 1 5 6 0 1 5