Zong v. McClanahan CA2/2

Filed 10/29/13 Zong v. McClanahan CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

ZHEN JIANG ZONG et al., B243528

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CG043452) v.

JERRY NELSON MCCLANAHAN,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. C. Edward Simpson, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Shin P. Yang, Shin P. Yang and Frank Carleo for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Hager Dowling Lim & Slack, John V. Hager and Christine W. Chambers for Defendant and Respondent.

______________________

This appeal arises out of an April 28, 2008, three-vehicle automobile accident. Jerry Nelson McClanahan (McClanahan) was driving the vehicle behind Zhen Jiang Zong (Zong),1 who was stopped at a traffic signal, when Richard Cambonga (Cambonga) rear-ended McClanahan. In 2009, Zong filed suit against the County of Los Angeles (the County), alleging that negligent traffic signal maintenance was the cause of the accident. In August 2010, Zong filed a Doe amendment, naming McClanahan in his lawsuit. McClanahan filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Doe amendment was untimely as having been filed more than two years after the accident. The trial court granted McClanahan‘s motion and entered judgment in his favor. Zong then filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that he was insane as a result of the April 2008 accident. According to Zong, this newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 657.)2 Moreover, his Doe amendment was timely because he was unaware of McClanahan‘s liability until July 2010. And, in any event, his insanity suspended the statute of limitations. The trial court denied Zong‘s motion for a new trial, and he now appeals. We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Zong‘s motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Accident On April 28, 2008, Zong was driving his vehicle and was stopped at the intersection of Temple City Boulevard and Broadway. McClanahan was driving the vehicle behind Zong. While Zong was stopped, his vehicle was impacted from the rear by McClanahan‘s vehicle. Then and now, McClanahan claims that while he was waiting for Zong to begin moving forward, his vehicle was struck from the rear by a car driven by