Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00371/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00371-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EYE LASER CARE CENTER, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 03cv371-BEN (AJB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

[Doc. No. 257]

vs.

MDTV MEDICAL NEWS NOW INC., and

PAUL ARGEN

Defendants/Counterclaimants.

Plaintiff Stephen Weinstock, M.D., has moved for partial summary judgment against defendant

MDTV Medical News Now, Inc. (“MDTV”) and defendant Paul Argen on Count 10 (fraud) and Count

12 (breach of contract) of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Defendants MDTV and Argen oppose the motion.

The motion is Denied.

The background facts have been set forth in prior Orders of this Court and need no repeating

here. See e.g., Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment (filed Jan. 25, 2007). Likewise, the

legal standards applicable to considerations of summary judgment motions are familiar and have been

set forth in prior Orders of this Court. The legal standards need not be repeated here except to note

that the existence of a genuine issue of material fact will require the denial of a motion for summary

judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

In this case, Weinstock hired MDTV and Argen to create advertising for his medical practice.

Case 3:03-cv-00371-BEN-AJB Document 266 Filed 08/06/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 03cv371

In the process, Weinstock claims MDTV and Argen defrauded him by misrepresenting the quality and

quantity of advertising that would be created and by breaching in various respects the resulting

contract for services. Weinstock supports his motion for summary judgment on the fraud and contract

claims primarily with his own declaration as to the facts. Were there no opposition, the motion would

be granted. However, MDTV and Argen have opposed the motion and submitted declarations that

create genuine issues of fact on a number of material questions. See MDTV Medical News Now Inc.’s

Notice of Lodgment of Exhibits 1-10 (filed Mar. 9, 2007). For example, Argen’s declaration states

that he is the Chief Executive Officer of MDTV and that he was involved in the contract relationship

with Weinstock. Id. at Exhibit 4, pp. 39-42. Argen disputes Weinstock’s claims and states that

MDTV provided adequate television studios to produce the MDTV show and owned the postproduction facilities, and produced a “network quality” television show featuring Weinstock as a guest

medical expert. Id. These are material facts which are genuinely contested. Id.; see also Declaration

of James Walsh, Producer of MDTV Medical News Now, Exhibit 6, pp. 50-53. MDTV also points

to Weinstock’s deposition wherein Weinstock concedes that LASIK patient load dropped rapidly

(from approximately 150 patients a month to 70 or 80) once the MDTV show stopped airing. Id. at

Exhibit 5, p. 46. In short, the contract and fraud dispute that is encompassed in Weinstock’s Count

10 and 12 of the original Complaint against MDTV, is a genuine dispute in which the issues of fact

that must be resolved by a jury. 

Therefore, Weinstock’s renewed motion for summary judgment against MDTV on count 10

(fraud) and Count 12 (breach of contract) is hereby, Denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 6, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00371-BEN-AJB Document 266 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 2