Martin v. CFY Development CA3, C089604

Background:

On July 2, 2016 Gaynell Martin was struck by a vehicle exiting the Juniper Apartments driveway at Atherton Drive; she sued multiple parties including CFY Development, Inc. (CFY).
Martin’s form complaint alleged premises liability and (when liberally construed) negligent construction relating to absence of a stop sign/limit line at the apartment exit.
CFY, the general contractor, moved for summary judgment asserting it did not own or control the property at the time of the accident and that the completed-and-accepted doctrine barred liability; it submitted a declaration (president Cyrus Youssefi) and certificates of occupancy.
Martin opposed with an expert declaration, site plans showing stop signs at both exits, discovery responses by the owner-developers admitting a sign was missing, and objections to CFY’s evidence; she sought leave to amend to plead negligent construction expressly.
The trial court granted CFY summary judgment, overruled key evidentiary objections, denied leave to amend, and Martin appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the complaint (liberally construed) plead negligent construction against CFY?	Martin: pleadings alleged negligent construction/failed placement of signage; therefore claim exists beyond premises liability.	CFY: framed as premises liability and denied ownership/control; emphasized completed-and-accepted defense.	Yes — liberally construed the pleadings include negligent construction allegations.
Does the completed-and-accepted doctrine bar CFY’s negligence liability?	Martin: CFY’s work was not shown to be completed or accepted; certificates/contract don’t prove owner acceptance; defect might be latent.	CFY: work was completed and accepted (certificates of occupancy, owner control), so doctrine bars third‑party claims for patent defects.	Yes — certificates, contract terms, and owner control showed completion/acceptance; the missing stop sign was a patent defect and doctrine bars the claim.
Were CFY’s evidentiary submissions properly admitted (Youssefi declaration and contract)?	Martin: objections under CCP § 437c(e), lack of personal knowledge/foundation, hearsay/secondary evidence.	CFY: declarant competent; contract authentic and relied on by Martin; documents judicially noticeable.	Court did not abuse discretion in overruling objections; declarations and contract admissible and Martin waived some objections by relying on contract.
Does CFY remain liable under premises liability or duty doctrines (Biakanja/Beacon)?	Martin: CFY had possession/control during construction and Biakanja/Beacon duty factors make CFY liable despite completed-and-accepted doctrine.	CFY: no control at time of accident; completed-and-accepted shields it; Beacon does not extend liability to non‑design general contractors in this context.	No — CFY lacked control at time of injury so premises liability fails; Biakanja/Beacon do not overcome the completed-and-accepted doctrine for patent defects here.

Key Cases Cited

Jones v. P.S. Development Co., Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 707 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (explaining completed-and-accepted doctrine as defense to third‑party negligence claims)
Neiman v. Leo A. Daly Co., 210 Cal.App.4th 962 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (completed-and-accepted applies to patent defects; project completion may be established despite deviations from plans)
Sanchez v. Swinerton & Walberg Co., 47 Cal.App.4th 1461 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (patent vs. latent defect analysis and limits on contractor liability)
Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647 (Cal. 1958) (multi‑factor test for duty to third parties not in privity)
Beacon Residential Cmty. Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, 59 Cal.4th 568 (Cal. 2014) (architect duty to future homeowners; discussed in relation to Biakanja factors)
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (summary judgment standard)
Lackner v. North, 135 Cal.App.4th 1188 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (summary judgment review framework)