Which Lawyers Win Before Your Judge?

About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.

  • Know Your Judge

    Every judge has a pattern — what they grant, what they deny, how they handle the kinds of motions your case will see.

  • Know The Lawyers

    See an attorney’s actual track record — case types, courts, and how they’ve performed in front of this judge before.

  • Know Your Court

    Every courthouse has its own rhythm — filing-to-resolution times, common dispositions, how often cases like yours settle.

Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?

How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?

AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Photo of Butte County Superior

Court

Butte County Superior

California

View Court Profile

Case Information

Filed 2023-10-02
Status Closed
Type (45) Unlimited Medical Malpractice
Docket 76 entries
Disposition dismiss

Parties

Plaintiff De Arevalo, Oralia Contreras|Arevalo, Eduardo|View Document Defendants Notice Of Motion & Motion To Disqualify Counsel For S|View Document Memorandum Of Points & Authorities In Support Of Motion To Disqualify Counsel For S|View Document Declaration Of Salenko In Support Of Motion To Disqualify Counsel For S|View Document Amended Motion To Disqualify Counsel For|View Document S' Amended Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Firm|View Document Reply Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Disqualify Counsel For S'|View Document Declaration Of Attorney In Support Of Motion To Disqualify Counsel For S'|View Document 's Objection To New Evidence In Defendant's Reply Brief Or Sur Reply Responding|View Document S' Further Response To New Evidence Submitted By Defendant With Defendants' Reply Brief|View Document S' Case Management Ment|View Document Enloe's Case Management Ment|View Document Defendant Filho's Case Management Ment|View Document Defendant Wong's Case Management Ment|View Document Defend
Defendant Filho, Rubens Barrios Costa, Md|View Document S Notice Of Motion & Motion To Disqualify Counsel For Plaintiffs|View Document Plaintiff's Objection To New Evidence In 's Reply Brief Or Sur Reply Responding|View Document Plaintiffs' Further Response To New Evidence Submitted By With Defendants' Reply Brief|View Document Filho's Case Management Statement|View Document Wong's Case Management Statement|View Document Wong Et Al's Case Management Statement|View Document Rubens Barros Costa Filho's Notice Of Firm Name Change|View Document S' Settlement Conference Statement
Photo of Hon. Benson, Stephen E

Judge

Hon. Benson, Stephen E

Butte County (CA)

California

View Judge Profile

Lawyers

Docket Entries

  1. Status Conference View Document Request for Dismissal Entire Action - Entered Judicial Officer Benson, Stephen E Hearing Time 10:30 AM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment Status of Settlement
  2. Civil Case Cover Sheet View Document Civil Case Cover Sheet
  3. Complaint View Document Complaint
  4. Proof of Service Served Served Served Unserved Served Served
  5. Cause Of Action Action Negligence File Date
  6. Cause Of Action Action Intentional Tort File Date
  7. Notice of Assignment and Case Management Conference View Document Notice of Assignment and Case Management Conference Judicial Officer Benson, Stephen E
  8. Answer - Response - Denial - Unlimited View Document Answer of Lester Kent Wong MD; Huifang Zhou and Pathology Sciences Medical Group
  9. Jury Deposit - Non Refundable
  10. Jury Deposit - Non Refundable
  11. Answer - Response - Denial - Unlimited View Document Answer of Enloe Regional Cancer Center and Enloe Medical Center
  12. Demand for Jury Trial View Document Demand for Jury Trial and Notice of Posting Jury Fee
  13. Proof of Service of Summons Filed View Document Proof of Service of Summons as to Enloe Medical Center Comment Proof of Service of Summons as to Enloe Medical Center
  14. Proof of Service of Summons Filed View Document Proof of Service of Summons as to Enloe Regional Cancer Center Comment Proof of Service of Summons as to Enloe Regional Cancer Center
  15. Proof of Service of Summons Filed View Document Proof of Service of Summons - Dr. Zhou Comment Huifang Zhou MD
  16. Proof of Service of Summons Filed View Document Proof of Service of Summons - Lester Wong MD Comment Lester Kent Wong MD
  17. Proof of Service of Summons Filed View Document Proof of Service of Summons- Pathology Sciences Comment Pathology Sciences Medical Groug
  18. Motion - Fee View Document Defendants Notice of Motion & Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs Comment Notice of Motion & Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs
  19. Memorandum of Points and Authorities View Document Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs Comment Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs
  20. Declaration View Document Declaration of Salenko in Support of Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs Comment Declaration of Salenko in Support of Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs
  21. Answer - Response - Denial - Unlimited View Document Answer to Complaint by Ruben Barrios Costa Filho MD
  22. Motion - No Fee View Document Amended Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiff Comment Amended Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiff
  23. Opposition - No Fee View Document Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Comment Opposition to Motion to Disqualify
  24. Opposition - No Fee View Document Plaintiffs' Amended Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Firm Comment Plaintiffs' Amended Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Firm
  25. Reply View Document Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs' Comment Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs'
  26. Declaration View Document Declaration of Attorney in Support of Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs' Comment Declaration of Attorney in Support of Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs'
  27. Objection - No Fee View Document Plaintiff's Objection to New Evidence in Defendant's Reply Brief or Sur Reply Responding Comment Plaintiff's Objection to New Evidence in Defendant's Reply Brief or Sur Reply Responding to New Evidence
  28. Motion Hearings - Predisposition Original Type Motion Hearings - Predisposition View Document Defendants Notice of Motion & Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs View Document Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs View Document Declaration of Salenko in Support of Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs View Document Amended Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiff View Document Opposition to Motion to Disqualify View Document Plaintiffs' Amended Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Firm View Document Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs' View Document Declaration of Attorney in Support of Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs' View Document Plaintiff's Objection to New Evidence in Defendant's Reply Brief or Sur Reply Responding View Document Civil Minutes Judicial Officer Benson, Stephen E Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment Lester Kent Wong, MD, Huifang Zhou, MD & Pathology Sciences Medical Group's Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs
  29. Tentative Ruling Comment Defendants Lester Kent Wong, M.D., Huifang Zhou, M.D., and Pathology Sciences Medical Group's Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs is continued to February 28, 2024 at 9:00am. The reply introduces new evidence. The Court has discretion to consider new evidence in the reply only if the opposing party has an opportunity to respond to the new material, see Plenger v. Alza Corp., (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 349, 361 fn. 8. Although the Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' objection and, "Sur Reply Responding to New Evidence", in an abundance of caution, the Court is continuing the mater to provide Plaintiffs a proper opportunity to further respond to the new evidence if they so choose. Plaintiffs may file and serve a further response, if they so choose, which should be limited to the new evidence, no later than noon on February 20, 2024.
  30. Minute Order View Document Civil Minutes
  31. Response - No Fee View Document Plaintiffs' Further Response to New Evidence Submitted by Defendant with Defendants' Reply Brief Comment Plaintiffs' Further Response to New Evidence Submitted by Defendant with Defendants' Reply Brief Re: Defendants' Motion for Disqualification of Plaintiffs' Counsel
  32. Motion Hearings - Predisposition Original Type Motion Hearings - Predisposition View Document Plaintiffs' Further Response to New Evidence Submitted by Defendant with Defendants' Reply Brief View Document Civil Minutes Judicial Officer Benson, Stephen E Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment Lester Kent Wong, MD, Huifang Zhou, MD & Pathology Sciences Medical Group's Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs; Continued from 2/14/24 Parties Present Plaintiff Retained Counsel: Ikuta, Benjamin Taisuke Plaintiff Retained Counsel: Ikuta, Benjamin Taisuke Defendant Retained Counsel: Gosling, Sarah Christine
  33. Tentative Ruling Comment Defendants Lester Kent Wong, M.D., Huifang Zhou, M.D., and Pathology Sciences Medical Group's Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are correct in that disqualification is not necessarily required simply because the attorney obtained internal information as a result of the attorney's representation in the prior case. See Farris v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 671, 680 [The attorney's acquisition during the first representation of general information about the first client's "overall structure and practices" would not of itself require disqualification unless it were found to be "material"-i.e., directly in issue or of critical importance-in the second representation.] The present representation will be deemed to be "substantially related" to the prior representation if (1) the present representation "involves the work the lawyer performed" during the prior representation, or (2) "there is a substantial risk that [the present representation] will involve the use of information acquired in the course of [the prior representation], unless that information has become generally known." (Farris, supra, at p. 680) If there is a reasonable probability that confidences were disclosed which could be used against the client in a later representation, a substantial relationship between the two cases would be presumed. (Id at 683) Here, the e-mail from Ms. Raven demonstrates that she was involved in assessing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the prior medical malpractice case against the physician defendant. She provided a recommendation and assessment of the case. It also appears that she had dealings with the defense expert in the prior case. This evidence, combined with the declaration of Bruce Salenko supports the Court's finding that a substantial risk exists that information acquired in the previous representation could be used in this case. Plaintiffs contend that because Defendants did not file the emails under seal that they have waived any confidentiality argument. As noted in Farris, Defendants cannot make the substantially related argument if the "information has become generally known." However, the Court finds the evidence presented by Defendants does not necessarily represent all of the confidential information acquired by Ms. Raven. Rather, the evidence presented demonstrates that she was directly and closely familiar with the previous case. Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds it likely that Ms. Raven was privy to additional confidential information that was not disclosed in the emails. As a result, it cannot be said that all of the information she possesses has become generally known. In summary, the Court finds the matters to be substantially related. Regarding Plaintiffs' arguments that the cases involved different patients, different parts of the body, etc., the Court finds such differences immaterial. It is "the similarities between the legal problem involved in the former representation and the legal problem involved in the current representation. (Farris, supra at p. 681). Here, the legal similarities medical malpractice actions involving the alleged misdiagnosis of cancer. The fact the cases have separate factual inquiries is not material. Indeed Farris rejected Plaintiff's argument in the case that analysis is case specific to the particular facts of the case. Defendants shall prepare and submit a form of order consistent with this ruling within 2 weeks.
  34. Minute Order View Document Civil Minutes
  35. Case Under Submission for Decision Judicial Officer Benson, Stephen E
  36. Proof of Mailing
  37. Order View Document Order After Hearing Judicial Officer Benson, Stephen E Comment Order After Hearing
  38. Case Management Statement View Document Plaintiffs' Case Management Statement
  39. Jury Deposit - Non Refundable Comment Notice of Posting Jury Fees
  40. Case Management Statement View Document Enloe's Case Management Statement
  41. Case Management Statement View Document Defendant Filho's Case Management Statement
  42. Jury Deposit - Non Refundable
  43. Case Management Statement View Document Defendant Wong's Case Management Statement
  44. Case Management Conference View Document Complaint View Document Answer of Lester Kent Wong MD; Huifang Zhou and Pathology Sciences Medical Group View Document Answer of Enloe Regional Cancer Center and Enloe Medical Center View Document Proof of Service of Summons as to Enloe Medical Center View Document Proof of Service of Summons as to Enloe Regional Cancer Center View Document Answer to Complaint by Ruben Barrios Costa Filho MD View Document Plaintiffs' Case Management Statement View Document Enloe's Case Management Statement View Document Defendant Filho's Case Management Statement View Document Defendant Wong's Case Management Statement View Document Civil Minutes Judicial Officer Benson, Stephen E Hearing Time 10:30 AM Result Held Parties Present Plaintiff Retained Counsel: Ikuta, Benjamin Taisuke Plaintiff Retained Counsel: Ikuta, Benjamin Taisuke Defendant Retained Counsel: Gosling, Sarah Christine
  45. Minute Order View Document Civil Minutes
  46. Proof of Service of Summons Filed View Document Proof of Service or Summons/Complaint as to Rubens Barrios Costa Filho, MD Comment Proof of Service or Summons/Complaint as to Rubens Barrios Costa Filho, MD
  47. Request for Dismissal - Entered in Part View Document Request for Dismissal - Entered in Part as to Enloe Medical Center & Enloe Regional Cancer Center Comment Request for Dismissal - Entered in Part as to Enloe Medical Center & Enloe Regional Cancer Center
  48. Notice of Entry of Dismissal View Document Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service
  49. Case Management Statement View Document Defendant Wong et al's Case Management Statement
  50. Case Management Statement View Document Defendant Filho's Case Management Statement
  51. Case Management Statement View Document Plaintiffs' Case Management Statement
  52. Case Management Conference Original Type Case Management Conference View Document Defendant Wong et al's Case Management Statement View Document Defendant Filho's Case Management Statement View Document Plaintiffs' Case Management Statement View Document Civil Minutes Judicial Officer Benson, Stephen E Hearing Time 10:30 AM Result Held Comment Further Status Parties Present Plaintiff Retained Counsel: Ikuta, Benjamin Taisuke Plaintiff Retained Counsel: Ikuta, Benjamin Taisuke Defendant Retained Counsel: Gosling, Sarah Christine
  53. Minute Order View Document Civil Minutes
  54. Notice View Document Defendant Rubens Barros Costa Filho's Notice of Firm Name Change Comment Notice of Firm Name Change
  55. Substitution of Attorney View Document Substitution of Attorney
  56. Settlement Conference Statement View Document Plaintiffs' Settlement Conference Statement
  57. Settlement Conference Statement View Document Lester Kent Wong, Huifang Zhou and Pathology Science Medical Group's Settlement Conference Statement
  58. Settlement Conference Statement View Document Ruben Barros Costa Filho's Settlement Conference Statement
  59. Settlement Conference Original Type Settlement Conference View Document Plaintiffs' Settlement Conference Statement View Document Lester Kent Wong, Huifang Zhou and Pathology Science Medical Group's Settlement Conference Statement View Document Ruben Barros Costa Filho's Settlement Conference Statement View Document Civil Minutes Judicial Officer Heithecker, Philip H Hearing Time 10:00 AM Result Held Comment 8 Day Estimate Parties Present Plaintiff: De Arevalo, Oralia Contreras Retained Counsel: Ikuta, Benjamin Taisuke Retained Counsel: Leonard, Nicholas John Plaintiff: Arevalo, Eduardo Retained Counsel: Ikuta, Benjamin Taisuke Retained Counsel: Leonard, Nicholas John Defendant Retained Counsel: Gosling, Sarah Christine
  60. Judicial Settlement Conference Worksheet
  61. Minute Order View Document Civil Minutes
  62. Case Management Conference Original Type Case Management Conference View Document Civil Minutes Judicial Officer Benson, Stephen E Hearing Time 10:30 AM Result Held Comment Setting of Further Mandatory Settlement Conference Parties Present Plaintiff Retained Counsel: Ikuta, Benjamin Taisuke Plaintiff Retained Counsel: Ikuta, Benjamin Taisuke Defendant Retained Counsel: Gosling, Sarah Christine
  63. Minute Order View Document Civil Minutes
  64. Settlement Conference Statement View Document Plaintiffs' Settlement Conference Statement
  65. Settlement Conference Statement View Document Ruben Barrios Costa Filho, MD's Settlement Conference Statement
  66. Settlement Conference Statement View Document Defendants' Settlement Conference Statement
  67. Settlement Conference Original Type Settlement Conference View Document Plaintiffs' Settlement Conference Statement View Document Ruben Barrios Costa Filho, MD's Settlement Conference Statement View Document Civil Minutes View Document Defendants' Settlement Conference Statement Judicial Officer Heithecker, Philip H Hearing Time 10:00 AM Result Held Parties Present Plaintiff Retained Counsel: Ikuta, Benjamin Taisuke Plaintiff Retained Counsel: Ikuta, Benjamin Taisuke Defendant Retained Counsel: Gosling, Sarah Christine
  68. Minute Order View Document Civil Minutes
  69. Judicial Settlement Conference Worksheet
  70. Notice of Settlement View Document Notice of Settlement
  71. Trial Readiness Conference Judicial Officer Benson, Stephen E Hearing Time 1:30 PM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment 8 Day Estimate
  72. Request for Dismissal - Entered in Part View Document Request for Dismissal - Entered in Part as to Lester Kent Wong, MD, Huifang Zhou, MD & Pathology Comment Request for Dismissal - Entered in Part as to Lester Kent Wong, MD, Huifang Zhou, MD & Pathology Sciences Medical Group
  73. Jury Trial Judicial Officer Benson, Stephen E Hearing Time 8:00 AM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment 8 Day Estimate
  74. Notice of Entry of Dismissal View Document Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service
  75. Request for Dismissal Entire Action - Entered View Document Request for Dismissal Entire Action - Entered
  76. Notice of Entry of Dismissal View Document Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

See the patterns behind this case

The free view above tells you who’s in the room. The detailed reports below show how the room tends to behave — using the same public records lawyers quietly rely on before every hearing.

  • Judge Report

    How this judge has ruled in cases like yours — case mix, motion outcomes, and historical docket. Judges set the floor of what’s possible in your courtroom.

  • Attorney vs Judge Report

    Everything in the Judge Report, plus how your attorney has actually performed in front of this judge. Attorneys move you off the floor — or don’t.

One-time payment, no subscription. Reports describe past public court activity — they don’t predict outcomes and they aren’t legal advice.

Get Free Case Details

Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.

By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase

Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In

Featured in Forbes, Bloomberg, The New Yorker, Above The Law, American Bar Association, and more