Zhijie Zhu, et al. v. Shu-Mei Wang, et al.

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE ZHIJIE ZHU, et al., CASE NO. C23-1395-JCC Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. SHU-MEI WANG, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 196) of this Court’s order dismissing certain defendants in this action based on a statute of limitations bar (Dkt. No. 194). Plaintiff, in moving for reconsideration of that order, introduces new facts (some of which are outside of the complaint and not appropriately subject to judicial notice) and makes legal argument (some of which could have made in earlier briefing) as to why the statute of limitations does not, in fact, bar Plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants who previously moved for dismissal.

22 Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored. LCR 7(h)(1). Reconsideration is only appropriate where there is “manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. “A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask the court to rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Ma v. Univ. of S.

1 California, 2019 WL 1239269, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2019). Plaintiff fails to meet this standard. Thus, their motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 196) is DENIED.

4 DATED this 29th day of December 2026.

A John C. Coughenour 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE