Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:433

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Craig J. Mariam (SBN: 225280)
cmariam@grsm.com
John P. Cogger (SBN: 172808)
jcogger@grsm.com
Samuel B. Laughlin (SBN: 299720)
slaughlin@grsm.com
GORDON REES SCULLY
MANSUKHANI, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-5000
Facsimile: (213) 877-306-0043
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
Kevin Murphy, M.D.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE NEWPORT BRAIN
RESEARCH LABORATORY, INC.,
a California corporation, and NBRL
V, a Nevada limited liability
corporation,

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
KEVIN MURPHY, an Individual; and)
)
DOES 1 through 10,
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
KEVIN MURPHY, M.D., an
)
Individual,
)
)
Counterclaimant, )
)
vs.
)
)
THE NEWPORT BRAIN
RESEARCH LABORATORY, INC., )
)
dba Brain Treatment Center, a
California corporation, and NBRL V, )
a Nevada limited liability corporation, )
and, ROES 1 through 10, inclusive, )
)
)
Counter)
Defendants.
)

CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton
Courtroom 10A
COUNTERCLAIM FOR:
(1) SLANDER PER SE;
(2) TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE
WITH CONTRACT;
(3) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE; AND,
(4) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE
WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE.

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

-1CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
COUNTERCLAIM

 Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:434

1

Defendant and counter-claimant Kevin Murphy, M.D., hereby alleges the

2

following counterclaim for relief against plaintiffs and counter-defendants The

3

Newport Brain Research Laboratory, Inc., doing business as Brain Treatment

4

Center (“NBRL”), NBRL V, and ROES 1 through 10, inclusive (collectively,

5

“Counter-Defendants”) as follows:

6

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

7

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the state claims brought

8

by Dr. Murphy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367 because these claims are so

9

related to Dr. Murphy’s claims under Federal Law that they form part of the same

10

case of controversy and derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, including

11

the following of Dr. Murphy’s claims: First Claim for Slander Per Se, California

12

Civil Code section 46; Second Claim for Tortuous Interference with Contract;

13

Third Claim for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage;

14

and, Fourth Claim for Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic

15

Advantage.

16

2.

NBRL and NBRL V commenced this action through the filing of their

17

Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, charging Dr. Murphy with, among other claims,

18

unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. section 1125(a) and copyright infringement

19

under 17 U.S.C. section 101, et seq., and thus, NBRL and NBRL V have submitted

20

themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court.

21
22

THE PARTIES
3.

Dr. Murphy is a board-certified radiation oncologist and a professor

23

and Vice Chair of the Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences

24

and Director of the Center for Neuromodulation at the University of California San

25

Diego, who works and resides in the County of San Diego, State of California.

26

4.

On information and belief, NBRL is a corporation organized under the

27

laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business located in this

28

judicial district at 1601 Dove St., Suite 299, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
-2CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
COUNTERCLAIM

 Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:435

1

5.

2

organized under the laws of the State of Nevada, with its principal place of

3

business located in this judicial district at 1601 Dove St., Suite 299, Newport

4

Beach, CA 92660.

5

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

On information and belief, NBRL V is a limited liability corporation

6.

Dr. Murphy does not know the true names or capacities of third party

6

defendants ROES 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues these persons or

7

entities by their fictitious names. Dr. Murphy will amend this counterclaim to

8

allege their true names or capacities when they have been ascertained. Dr. Murphy

9

is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that each fictitious third party

10

defendant is in some manner responsible for the acts or omissions alleged, and the

11

damages claimed, in this action.

12

7.

Dr. Murphy is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that

13

each and all Counter-Defendants, including ROES 1 through 10, were the agents,

14

servants, employees, partners, or joint venturers of each other Counter-Defendant,

15

and that each Counter-Defendant was acting within the course and scope of such

16

agency, employment, partnership, or joint venture, and with the consent or the

17

ratification of each other in doing the things alleged here.

18
19
20

BACKGROUND FACTS
A.

Dr. Murphy’s Practice and History
8.

Dr. Murphy is a professor and the Vice Chair in the Department of

21

Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences at the University of California San

22

Diego (“UCSD”) School of Medicine, where he instructs medical students,

23

residents, and fellows, and is frequently invited to speak on these technologies at

24

national and international seminars. Dr. Murphy specializes in the treatment of the

25

human brain, having practiced in radiation oncology for the past twenty-years, Dr.

26

Murphy’s clinical practice and research interests focus on the application of a

27

number of technologies in the treatment of pediatric and adult brain and central

28

nervous system tumors, including the use of Frameless Stereotactic Radiosurgery
-3CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
COUNTERCLAIM

 Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:436

1

(“SRS”), Intensity Modulated Stereotactic Radiosurgery (“IM-SRS”), and

2

Hypofractionated Stereotactic Radiosurgery.

3

9.

4

Military, as he served in the United States Navy as an Engineering Officer aboard

5

the aircraft carrier USS Ranger after graduating college in 1989, including service

6

in the Navy during the first Gulf War. Dr. Murphy has since developed part of his

7

practice and research focused on post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) suffered

8

by military veterans.

9

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dr. Murphy also has nine years of experience with the United States

10.

Dr. Murphy’s current medical research focuses on using a

10

personalized form of repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (“TMS”)

11

intended to restore neuronal synchrony in a number of neurocognitive and

12

behavioral disorders, and, to treat and diagnose terminally ill patients suffering

13

from brain tumors, among other brain maladies, including PTSD. In Dr. Murphy’s

14

practice, TMS relies on the use of a wireless electroencephalogram (“EEG”), a

15

non-invasive test that detects electrical activity in the brain using small sensors

16

placed over the patient’s scalp. Dr. Murphy is skilled in reading and interpreting

17

electrophysiological information, including EEGs. To date, Dr. Murphy has read

18

and interpreted tens of thousands of EEGs. Since he first started studying and

19

practicing in TMS, Dr. Murphy has treated more than 3,000 patients with his own

20

novel techniques, and is now pursuing approval for multiple clinical trials testing

21

TMS for various brain conditions, such as chemobrain, PTSD, addiction behaviors,

22

autism spectrum disorders, and cerebral palsy. Dr. Murphy’s proprietary “PrTMS”

23

treatment protocols are safe and effective, as is his treatment of his patients.

24

B.

25

Initial Interaction with NBRL
11.

Dr. Murphy’s son suffers from medical conditions, and as a result Dr.

26

Murphy has investigated a variety of new and developing treatments for his son,

27

including alternative medications and therapies for treatment.

28

12.

Dr. Murphy became aware of one such treatment possibility in 2013
-4CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE

COUNTERCLAIM

 Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:437

1

in the form of NBRL, which owns a treatment facility that specializes in TMS. Dr.

2

Murphy first learned of NBRL’s treatment center, BTC, in the summer of 2013. In

3

or about September of 2013, Dr. Murphy first approached NBRL about treatment

4

options for his son.

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

5

13.

In or about October of 2013, Dr. Murphy’s son began treatment at

6

NBRL’s treatment center, which continued into December of 2013. During the

7

treatment of his son, Dr. Murphy opined that NBRL could improve their TMS

8

treatment procedures, and offered suggestions on improving the treatment of his

9

son. At no time did NBRL, however, disclose any trade secret information

10

concerning treatment procedures including, but not limited to, any computer

11

algorithms involved in determining the appropriate frequency of alpha waves to

12

use on particular patients.

13

14.

During 2014, representatives of NBRL approached Dr. Murphy about

14

working together, and discussed a potential service agreement for EEG reads and

15

protocols, working as a vendor, not a partner, for Dr. Murphy. Specifically, NBRL

16

sought to take advantage of Dr. Murphy’s connections to the medical research and

17

academic community, particularly his position with UCSD. However, Dr. Murphy

18

never entered into a formal business relationship with NBRL.

19

C.

20

The Del Mar Neuro Center
15.

As a part of his own medical practice and research, Dr. Murphy

21

arranged for a practice space called the “Del Mar Neuro Center,” a treatment center

22

designed to specialize in PTSD clinical trials, including use of TMS for the

23

treatment of PTSD as well as other neurocognitive disorders. As part of

24

developing the Del Mar Neuro Center, Dr. Murphy procured donors to help in

25

funding. One such donor paid the rent for the entire Del Mar Neuro Center space

26

for Dr. Murphy.

27

16.

28

During this time and thereafter, Dr. Murphy developed his own

separate and independently-derived proprietary database and trade secret
-5CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
COUNTERCLAIM

 Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:438

1

proprietary protocols for treating patients with TMS. Dr. Murphy developed this

2

database and related protocols independently and without consultation with

3

Counter-Defendants, such was independently created, and possesses unique

4

independent economic value critical to the nature of the underlying technology and

5

businesses relying on same.

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

6

17.

NBRL also occupied a portion of the Del Mar Neuro Center, renting

7

a separate adjoining office space to also run its own PTSD clinical trials. Dr.

8

Murphy was not involved in NBRL’s trials or treatment, was not involved with

9

NBRL’s operations, received no compensation from NBRL, was not doctor of

10

record for those treated in NBRL’s separate facility, and did not share or otherwise

11

have access to NBRL’s computer systems or treatment protocols during this time

12

or at any other time.

13

D.

14

Counter-Defendants Actions Against Dr. Murphy
18.

During the time that Dr. Murphy was developing PeakLogic, his

15

business entity created to treating patients with TMS using his own developed

16

protocols, Dr. Murphy encountered professionals in the medical and venture

17

community who informed Dr. Murphy that Counter-Defendants made patently

18

false and slanderous per se statements to disparage Dr. Murphy, claiming, among

19

other falsehoods, that Dr. Murphy stole intellectual property from Counter-

20

Defendants, that Dr. Murphy’s science and practice are poor quality and/or unsafe,

21

and warning others to avoid Dr. Murphy so as to allow themselves to allegedly

22

avoid lawsuits. Based on information and belief, Counter-Defendants have

23

attempted to “scare away” investors in Dr. Murphy’s business entities through

24

these slanderous claims, causing several investors and millions of dollars in

25

investment capital from walking away from investing, including investors in the

26

Seattle, Washington, and Dallas, Texas areas. For example, one investor had

27

offered to invest $60 million into a new neuroscience center to be directed by Dr.

28

Murphy. Based on information and belief, this investor, among others, withdrew
-6CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
COUNTERCLAIM

 Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:439

1

an investment offer as a result of the falsehoods spread by Counter-Defendants.

2

As a result of the aforementioned defamation, Dr. Murphy has lost income,

3

revenue, and profits, including, but not limited to, lost business opportunities and

4

lost patient revenue.

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

5

19.

Dr. Murphy has also contacted members of the military and related

6

government contractors, specifically persons associated with the United States

7

Special Operations Command (“SOCOM”), about developing treatment for

8

SOCOM soldiers and other military veterans. These persons associated with

9

SOCOM have expressed concern with Dr. Murphy about rumors spread by

10

Counter-Defendants, including, but not limited to, claims that Dr. Murphy stole

11

intellectual property from Counter-Defendants, that Dr. Murphy’s science and

12

practice are poor quality and/or unsafe, not to “touch” Dr. Murphy with a ten-foot

13

pole, and warning others to avoid Dr. Murphy to avoid lawsuits. As a result of the

14

aforementioned defamation, Dr. Murphy has lost income, revenue, and profits,

15

including, but not limited to, lost business opportunities and lost patient revenue,

16

and has permanently and significantly damaged Dr. Murphy’s reputation with the

17

military, a significant source of income for Dr. Murphy’s practice and priceless

18

research for the sake of helping injured veterans and others suffering from PTSD.

19

20.

In 2017, Dr. Murphy entered into a confidential contract with the

20

United States Navy Sea, Air, and Land Teams, commonly abbreviated as Navy

21

SEALs. This contract must be renewed by the parties every year. Based on

22

information and belief, Dr. Murphy is now aware that representatives of Counter-

23

Defendants have spread false rumors to the Navy SEALs that have attempted to

24

damage and/or damaged Dr. Murphy’s relationship to throw the prospective

25

renewal of the contract into jeopardy.

26

21.

Dr. Murphy is aware that sometime in 2018, UCSD started an

27

investigation into Dr. Murphy based on unsubstantiated rumors concerning his

28

practice. Based on information and belief, the source of these rumors is Counter-7CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
COUNTERCLAIM

 Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:440

1

Defendants, who spread false and harmful rumors concerning Dr. Murphy’s

2

reputation, treatment, and character in a deliberate attempt to harm his academic

3

standing and misappropriate his business contacts.

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

4

22.

Most recently, during 2019, Counter-Defendants have made

5

statements heard by individuals who were clients/potential clients of Dr. Murphy,

6

business partners/potential business partners of Dr. Murphy, patients/potential

7

patients of Dr. Murphy, and/or individuals affiliated with UCSD to the effect that

8

Dr. Murphy improperly obtained equipment from UCSD, improperly obtained

9

technology from NBRL, and, that Dr. Murphy was unable to read and interpret

10

EEGs. Specifically, it has been learned that these statements were made by

11

individuals who represented themselves to be affiliated with NBRL and/or NBRL

12

V and whose identities will be ascertained via discovery, and were made to Jaryd

13

Stein, M.D., and, Marshall Payne of CIC Partners. NBRL personnel made

14

statements to Robin King, CEO of the Navy Seal Foundation, to not “touch [Dr.

15

Murphy] with a 10-foot-pole.” NBRL personnel made statements to Tim Ringo of

16

SOCOM that Dr. Murphy stole NBRL’s technology. It is believed that individuals

17

affiliated with NBRL made similar statements to other third party individuals, to be

18

further determined.

19

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

(Slander Per Se, Cal. Civil Code § 46, by Dr. Murphy against all Counter-

21

Defendants)

22
23
24

23.

Dr. Murphy incorporates the allegations of each foregoing paragraphs

as though fully set forth herein.
24.

As set forth above, at various times until the filing of this action, and

25

at additional times thereafter, Counter-Defendants made statements heard by

26

members of the medical, research, or academic community of or concerning Dr.

27

Murphy and his medical practice, in particular the following: that Dr. Murphy stole

28

intellectual property from Counter-Defendants, that Dr. Murphy’s science and
-8CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
COUNTERCLAIM

 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:441

1

practice are poor quality and/or unsafe, not to “touch” Dr. Murphy with a ten-foot

2

pole, and warning others to avoid Dr. Murphy to avoid lawsuits. Such utterances

3

are false, defaming on their faces, and are intended by Counter-Defendants to be

4

believed so as to convince all persons hearing them that Dr. Murphy was, among

5

other things, dishonest, unethical, a poor medical doctor, and otherwise of ill

6

business repute.

7

25.

It is understood on information and belief that most recently during

8

2019, Counter-Defendants have made statements heard by individuals who were

9

clients/potential clients of Dr. Murphy, business partners/potential business

10

partners of Dr. Murphy, patients/potential patients of Dr. Murphy, and/or

11

individuals affiliated with UCSD to the effect that Dr. Murphy improperly

12

obtained equipment from UCSD, improperly obtained technology from NBRL,

13

and, that Dr. Murphy was unable to read and interpret EEGs.

14

26.

These utterances spoken by Counter-Defendants were slanderous per

15

se because they tend to injure Dr. Murphy in his office, profession, trade, and

16

business by imputing upon him a general disqualification in those respects that his

17

office and occupation generally requires, and by imputing dishonesty and lack of

18

integrity in his business dealings, which has a natural tendency to lessen Dr.

19

Murphy’s business profits.

20
21
22
23
24

27.

As a result of the above-described words and conduct, Dr. Murphy

has suffered general damages to his reputation.
28.

As a further and proximate result of the above-described words, Dr.

Murphy has suffered special damages according to proof at trial.
29.

The above-described utterances were spoken by Counter-Defendants

25

with malice and oppression and with the intent to cause injury to Dr. Murphy

26

without any legitimate business reason for these words to be spoken. The actions

27

of Counter-Defendants were thus despicable, malicious, oppressive, and

28

fraudulent, entitling Dr. Murphy to recovery of exemplary and punitive damages in
-9CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
COUNTERCLAIM

 Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:442

1
2

30.

Because of the damage to Dr. Murphy’s reputation from Counter-

3

Defendants’ false statements, Dr. Murphy cannot be fully and/or fairly

4

compensated by monetary relief, and is entitled to permanent injunctive relief to

5

prevent Counter-Defendants from continuing their wrongful and harmful conduct.

6

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

an amount to be determined at trial.

31.

Dr. Murphy suffered harm as a result of Counter-Defendants’

7

conduct, and therefore seeks (a) preliminary, equitable and declaratory relief as

8

may be appropriate, (b) the sum of the actual damages suffered and the profits

9

obtained by Counter-Defendants as a result of their unlawful conduct, (c) punitive

10

damages, (d) reasonable costs and fees, and, (e) injunctive relief to prohibit

11

Counter-Defendants from further wrongful conduct.

12

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

13

(Tortuous Interference with Contract, by Dr. Murphy against all Counter-

14

Defendants)

15
16
17

32.

Dr. Murphy incorporates the allegations of each foregoing paragraphs

as though fully set forth herein.
33.

Dr. Murphy entered into contracts and agreements with third-parties

18

to provide medical services, and with UCSD, to provide research and academic

19

services.

20

34.

Counter-Defendants had knowledge of the contracts between Dr.

21

Murphy and the third-parties, and sought to undermine, sabotage, or otherwise

22

interfere with the contracts.

23

35.

Counter-Defendants intentionally reached out to the third-parties,

24

spreading false statements concerning Dr. Murphy, among other acts, in an effort

25

to cause the third-parties to breach their agreements with Dr. Murphy.

26

36.

It is understood on information and belief that most recently during

27

2019, Counter-Defendants have made statements heard by individuals who were

28

clients/potential clients of Dr. Murphy, business partners/potential business
-10CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
COUNTERCLAIM

 Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:443

1

partners of Dr. Murphy, patients/potential patients of Dr. Murphy, and/or

2

individuals affiliated with UCSD to the effect that Dr. Murphy improperly

3

obtained equipment from UCSD, improperly obtained technology from NBRL,

4

and, that Dr. Murphy was unable to read and interpret EEGs.

5

As a direct and proximate cause of Counter-Defendants’ wrongful

6

conduct, these third-parties breached their contracts with Dr. Murphy or otherwise

7

failed to perform.

8
9

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

37.

38.

As a direct and proximate result of NBRL’s wrongful conduct, Dr.

Murphy has suffered damage, including, but not limited to, costs and expenses

10

relocating his office to and from the Del Mar Neuro Center, loss of income,

11

business opportunity, damage to business opportunity and reputation, and

12

goodwill, all in amounts in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court to be

13

determined at trial.

14

39.

In doing the acts and omissions alleged herein, NBRL’s conduct was

15

despicable, and NBRL acted towards Dr. Murphy with malice, oppression, and

16

fraud, and with a willful and conscious disregard of Dr. Murphy’s rights, entitling

17

Dr. Murphy to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

18

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, by Dr.

20

Murphy against all Counter-Defendants)

21
22
23

40.

Dr. Murphy incorporates the allegations of each foregoing paragraphs

as though fully set forth herein.
41.

As described above, Dr. Murphy had valuable prospective economic

24

relationships and business opportunities with which it had a reasonable expectancy

25

of deriving future economic gain with third-parties, including, but not limited to,

26

relationships with potential investors, UCSD, and the United States military and

27

related military contractors. At all relevant times, Counter-Defendants were aware

28

of those relationships, and knew that their wrongful actions would do great damage
-11CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
COUNTERCLAIM

 Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:444

1

to those relationships. Counter-Defendants, through the wrongful acts alleged

2

herein, acted to wrongfully, knowingly, and intentionally interfere with and destroy

3

or harm Dr. Murphy’s prospective business relationships.

4

It is understood on information and belief that most recently during

5

2019, Counter-Defendants have made statements heard by individuals who were

6

clients/potential clients of Dr. Murphy, business partners/potential business

7

partners of Dr. Murphy, patients/potential patients of Dr. Murphy, and/or

8

individuals affiliated with UCSD to the effect that Dr. Murphy improperly

9

obtained equipment from UCSD, improperly obtained technology from NBRL,

10
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

42.

11

and, that Dr. Murphy was unable to read and interpret EEGs
43.

Counter-Defendants’ actions, and each of them, was intentional and

12

designed for the purpose of interfering with Dr. Murphy’s relationships prospective

13

relationships.

14

44.

Counter-Defendants’ acts as alleged herein have actually interfered

15

with and disrupted Dr. Murphy’s relationships and prospective relationships, and

16

those acts, which were designed to interfere with and disrupt those relationships,

17

have been a substantial factor in causing Dr. Murphy harm through the loss of

18

prospective economic advantage. Specifically, Counter-Defendants, through

19

words and conduct, acted to damage Dr. Murphy’s reputation with prospective

20

clients, contracts, and patients in an effort to damage his business and take these

21

clients, contracts, and patients for themselves.

22

45.

As a direct and proximate result of Counter-Defendants’ wrongful

23

conduct, Dr. Murphy has suffered damage, including, but not limited to, costs and

24

expenses relocating his office to and from the Del Mar Neuro Center, loss of

25

income, business opportunity, damage to business opportunity and reputation, and

26

goodwill, all in amounts in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court to be

27

determined at trial.

28

46.

In doing the acts and omissions alleged herein, Counter-Defendants’
-12CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE

COUNTERCLAIM

 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:445

1

conduct was despicable, and Counter-Defendants acted towards Dr. Murphy with

2

malice, oppression, and fraud, and with a willful and conscious disregard of Dr.

3

Murphy’s rights, entitling Dr. Murphy to an award of exemplary and punitive

4

damages.

5

47.

Because of the damage to Dr. Murphy’s reputation from Counter-

6

Defendants’ false statements, Dr. Murphy cannot be fully and/or fairly

7

compensated by monetary relief, and is entitled to permanent injunctive relief to

8

prevent Counter-Defendants from continuing their wrongful and harmful conduct.

9

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

10

(Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, by Dr.

11

Murphy against all Counter-Defendants)

12
13
14

48.

Dr. Murphy incorporates the allegations of each foregoing paragraphs

as though fully set forth herein.
49.

As described above, Dr. Murphy had valuable prospective economic

15

relationships and business opportunities with which it had a reasonable expectancy

16

of deriving future economic gain with third-parties, including, but not limited to,

17

relationships with potential investors, UCSD, and the United States military and

18

related military contractors. At all relevant times, Counter-Defendants were aware

19

of those relationships, and knew that their wrongful actions would do great damage

20

to those relationships. Counter-Defendants, through the wrongful acts alleged

21

herein, acted to wrongfully and negligently interfere with and destroy or harm Dr.

22

Murphy’s prospective business relationships.

23

50.

Counter-Defendants’ acts as alleged herein have actually interfered

24

with and disrupted Dr. Murphy’s relationships and prospective relationships, and

25

those acts, which were designed to interfere with and disrupt those relationships,

26

have been a substantial factor in causing Dr. Murphy harm through the loss of

27

prospective economic advantage. Specifically, Counter-Defendants, through

28

words and conduct, acted to damage Dr. Murphy’s reputation with prospective
-13CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
COUNTERCLAIM

 Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:446

1

clients, contracts, and patients in an effort to damage his business and take these

2

clients, contracts, and patients for themselves.

3

51.

4

2019, Counter-Defendants have made statements heard by individuals who were

5

clients/potential clients of Dr. Murphy, business partners/potential business

6

partners of Dr. Murphy, patients/potential patients of Dr. Murphy, and/or

7

individuals affiliated with UCSD to the effect that Dr. Murphy improperly

8

obtained equipment from UCSD, improperly obtained technology from NBRL,

9

and, that Dr. Murphy was unable to read and interpret EEGs.

10
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

It is understood on information and belief that most recently during

52.

As a direct and proximate result of Counter-Defendants’ wrongful

11

conduct, Dr. Murphy has suffered damage, including, but not limited to, costs and

12

expenses relocating his office to and from the Del Mar Neuro Center, loss of

13

income, business opportunity, damage to business opportunity and reputation, and

14

goodwill, all in amounts in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court to be

15

determined at trial.

16

53.

In doing the acts and omissions alleged herein, Counter-Defendants’

17

conduct was despicable, and Counter-Defendants acted towards Dr. Murphy with

18

malice, oppression, and fraud, and with a willful and conscious disregard of Dr.

19

Murphy’s rights, entitling Dr. Murphy to an award of exemplary and punitive

20

damages.

21

54.

Because of the damage to Dr. Murphy’s reputation from Counter-

22

Defendants’ false statements, Dr. Murphy cannot be fully and/or fairly

23

compensated by monetary relief, and is entitled to permanent injunctive relief to

24

prevent Counter-Defendants from continuing their wrongful and harmful conduct.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-14CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
COUNTERCLAIM

 Case 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE Document 41 Filed 08/01/19 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:447

1
2
3

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Dr. Murphy prays for judgment against Counter-Defendants
as follows:

4

1.

For general and special damages according to proof;

5

2.

Preliminary, equitable and declaratory relief as may be appropriate;

6

3.

For fees and costs;

7

4.

For exemplary and punitive damages; and,

8

5.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

9

proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

10
11
12

In accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38(b), Dr. Murphy
demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

13
14
15

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: August 1, 2019

16

GORDON REES SCULLY
MANSUKHANI, LLP

17
18

By: /s/ John P. Cogger
Craig J. Mariam
John P. Cogger
Samuel B. Laughlin
Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaimant Kevin Murphy,
M.D.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-15CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01625-JLS-JDE
COUNTERCLAIM