Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, et al.

W.D. Washington

Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, et al.

DecidedOctober 21, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-00447

StatusUnknown

This text of Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, et al. (Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, et al., (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 LINH WANG, CASE NO. C24-0447-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 ESURANCE INSUANCE COMPANY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Esurance Insurance Company’s motion 16 for reconsideration of the Court’s order excluding Lola Hogan’s expert testimony (Dkt. No. 108). 17 The Court did so after concluding that Defendant’s briefing (Dkt. No. 82) on Plaintiff’s Daubert 18 motion (Dkt. No. 60) failed to establish the industry standard(s) Ms. Hogan sought to opine on. 19 (See Dkt. No. 106 at 2–4.) 20 Now, on reconsideration and for the first time, Defendant provides the Court with Ms. 21 Hogan’s deposition testimony. (See Dkt. No. 108 at 2–4) (citing Dkt. No. 109 at 8–33). But even 22 this evidence does a poor job in articulating the relevant standard(s), at least in any useful depth. 23 Thus, the relevance of Ms. Hogan’s testimony to the finder of fact appears limited. See Fed. R. 24 Evid. 702. Regardless, a motion for reconsideration is not the time to reargue a position or 25 present the Court with evidence available previously. LCR 7(h)(1); see Rulffes v. Macy’s W. 26 1 Stores LLC, 2023 WL 5207356, slip op. at 2 (W.D. Wash. 2023). Fundamentally, in seeking 2 reconsideration, Defendant must demonstrate that the Court committed manifest error or provide 3 it with new facts or legal authority not available earlier with reasonable diligence. See Wilcox v. 4 Hamilton Constr., LLC, 426 F. Supp. 3d 788, 792 (W.D. Wash. 2019). Defendant fails to do so. 5 For this reason, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 108) is DENIED. 6 7 DATED this 21st day of October 2025. A 8 9 10 John C. Coughenour 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 LINH WANG, CASE NO. C24-0447-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 ESURANCE INSUANCE COMPANY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Esurance Insurance Company’s motion 16 for reconsideration of the Court’s order excluding Lola Hogan’s expert testimony (Dkt. No. 108). 17 The Court did so after concluding that Defendant’s briefing (Dkt. No. 82) on Plaintiff’s Daubert 18 motion (Dkt. No. 60) failed to establish the industry standard(s) Ms. Hogan sought to opine on. 19 (See Dkt. No. 106 at 2–4.) 20 Now, on reconsideration and for the first time, Defendant provides the Court with Ms. 21 Hogan’s deposition testimony. (See Dkt. No. 108 at 2–4) (citing Dkt. No. 109 at 8–33). But even 22 this evidence does a poor job in articulating the relevant standard(s), at least in any useful depth. 23 Thus, the relevance of Ms. Hogan’s testimony to the finder of fact appears limited. See Fed. R. 24 Evid. 702. Regardless, a motion for reconsideration is not the time to reargue a position or 25 present the Court with evidence available previously. LCR 7(h)(1); see Rulffes v. Macy’s W. 26 1 Stores LLC, 2023 WL 5207356, slip op. at 2 (W.D. Wash. 2023). Fundamentally, in seeking 2 reconsideration, Defendant must demonstrate that the Court committed manifest error or provide 3 it with new facts or legal authority not available earlier with reasonable diligence. See Wilcox v. 4 Hamilton Constr., LLC, 426 F. Supp. 3d 788, 792 (W.D. Wash. 2019). Defendant fails to do so. 5 For this reason, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 108) is DENIED. 6 7 DATED this 21st day of October 2025. A 8 9 10 John C. Coughenour 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linh-wang-v-esurance-insurance-company-et-al-wawd-2025.