Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00371/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00371-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 - 03cv371-BEN (AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN WEINSTOCK, M.D., et al.

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 03CV371-BEN (AJB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No.

197]

vs.

MDTV MEDICAL NEWS, INC. and PAUL

ARGEN,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Stephen Weinstock, M.D. (“Weinstock” or “Plaintiff”) has filed an action against

Defendants MDTV Medical News Now, Inc. (“MDTV”) and MDTV’s Chief Executive Officer,

Paul Argen (collectively “Defendants”), alleging: (1) common law fraud; (2) common law

negligent misrepresentation; (3) common law breach of contract; (4) deceptive and unfair trade

practices under Florida Statutes §§ 501.204, 501.2105 and 501.211; and (5) negligence. 

Weinstock now moves for summary judgment on these claims. For the reasons that follow,

Weinstock is not entitled to judgment.

“A summary judgment is neither a method of avoiding the necessity for proving one’s case

nor a clever procedural gambit whereby a claimant can shift to an adversary the burden of proof on

one or more issues.” Watts v. United States, 703 F.2d 346, 347 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). 

“To obtain a summary judgment in favor of a claim, the moving party must offer evidence

sufficient to support a finding upon every element of his or her claim except those elements

Case 3:03-cv-00371-BEN-AJB Document 251 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 3
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 - 03cv371-BEN (AJB)

admitted by the adversary.” Id. (citation and internal quotations and alterations omitted). “A

plaintiff who seeks summary judgment and who fails to produce sufficient evidence on one or

more essential elements of the claim is no more entitled to a judgment than is a plaintiff who has

fully tried the case and who has neglected to offer evidence sufficient to support a finding on a

material issue upon which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. In either situation, there is a

failure of proof.” Id. (citation and internal quotations and alterations omitted). Such is the case

here. 

In his moving papers, Weinstock has failed to identify the required elements or prongs for

the claims on which he seeks summary judgment, much less a showing of absence of material fact

as to each element. See T.W. Elec. Service, Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626,

630 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A ‘material’ fact is one that is relevant to an element of a claim or defense

and whose existence might affect the outcome of the suit. The materiality of a fact is thus

determined by the substantive law governing the claim or defense.” ). Weinstock merely set forth

the facts he alleges are undisputed without the required showing how such alleged undisputed facts

relate, or otherwise satisfy, his burden of proof as to his claims against the Defendants. 

Accordingly, Weinstock’s motion is DENIED without prejudice. Weinstock may renew

his motion for summary judgment against the Defendants on or before February 22, 2007. To

properly do so, the motion must: (1) set forth, in the notice of motion and accompanying points

and authorities, each claim in the operative complaint on which Weinstock seeks judgment; (2)

identify the required elements or prongs for each individual claim with citation to binding case law

authority; and (3) set forth a statement of undisputed facts, identifying those portions of the

pleadings, depositions, answer to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, and

explain how such undisputed facts satisfy his burden of proof as to each prong of his claims.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 25, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00371-BEN-AJB Document 251 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 3
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 - 03cv371-BEN (AJB)

Case 3:03-cv-00371-BEN-AJB Document 251 Filed 01/25/07 Page 3 of 3