Christopher Scott Baisa, et al. v. Edwina Dickinson Olt, et al.

Christopher Scott Baisa, et al. v. Edwina Dickinson Olt, et al., 25CV-0411

Hearing: Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination

Date: May 20, 2026

Christopher Scott Baisa and Mark Barnard (Plaintiffs) purchased a house from Edwina Dickinson Olt and John T. Hyland (Sellers). Plaintiffs were represented by realtors Lindsay Harn and Sereno Group, Inc. and Sellers were represented by realtors Leeanne Fisher and Compass California, Inc. (The realtors for both parties are collectively referred to as Brokers.)

Plaintiffs allege Sellers and Brokers failed to disclose and then concealed 1) that a multi‐story residence with a roof‐top deck (Garden Street Project) was approved for construction; or 2) the extent of the noise from the adjacent Libertine Brewing Company and late‐night activities.

Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that Seller Defendant Olt had submitted written objections to the City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission complaining that the Garden Street Project’s “complete wall of windows” would “look directly into [her] home,” destroy her privacy, and diminish her property value. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs also allege Sellers filed complaints with the City of San Luis Obispo regarding amplified music, late‐night noise, and permit violations by Libertine. (Complaint, ¶ 12.)

Brokers report they have reached a settlement with Plaintiffs for $30,000. Before the Court is Brokers’ motion for a good faith settlement determination pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.1

1. Legal Standard

“The good faith provision [] mandates that the courts review agreements purportedly made under its aegis to insure that such settlements appropriately balance the contribution statute’s dual objectives,” i.e., equitable sharing of costs among the parties and encouragement of settlements. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1980) 38 Cal.3d 488, 494 (Tech-Bilt).)

A determination that a settlement has been reached in “good faith” requires that “the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor’s proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff’s injuries,” taking into account the facts and circumstances of the particular case at the time of settlement. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.) Factors to consider in determining whether the settlement is within a “reasonable range” include:

1. A rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; 2. The amount paid in settlement; 3. The allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs;

1 Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted. 1

4. A recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; 5. The settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits; and 6. Evidence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct between the settlor and the plaintiffs aimed at making the nonsettling parties pay more than their fair share.

(Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.)

Another key factor is the settling tortfeasor’s potential liability for indemnity to joint tortfeasors. (Far West Financial Corp. v. D & S Co. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 816.) Each of these factors is evaluated on the basis of the information that was available to the parties at the time the settlement was entered into. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.)

2.

Discussion

A. Evidence that Settlement is in Good Faith

Plaintiffs purchased the house for $1,379,000 and pray for not less than $25,000 in damages with prejudgment interest. (Complaint, ¶¶ 8, 13, p. 7, lns. 10-19.) The settlement amount is $30,000. The settlement was reached without collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed at prejudicing the interests of any non-settling parties. (Declaration of Leeanne Fisher (Fisher Dec.), ¶¶ 12, 13.) The settlement agreement specifies that it does not release or otherwise affect any other claims asserted by Plaintiffs against any other parties. (Fisher Dec., ¶ 12, Ex. 12, § 2.5.)

Brokers provide evidence that Sellers did not tell their brokers about, and Brokers were not aware of the Garden Street Project. Brokers provide evidence that the noise effects of Libertine Brewery and late-night activities were disclosed. (Fisher Dec., ¶¶ 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; Exs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.) The Agent Visual Inspection Disclosure provided to Plaintiffs stated, “Property is located on a street with mixed use; there are various auto & pedestrian traffic patterns; associated sound; buyers to investigate use of home and lot; . . . .” (Fisher Dec., ¶ 9, Ex. 10.) Given Brokers’ defenses, including Plaintiffs’ duty to inspect, Brokers arguably have no liability to Plaintiffs.

Once a settling party makes a showing of good faith, the burden of proof shifts to the non-settlor to show a lack of good faith. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court, (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261; see also, § 877.6, subd. (d) [“[t]he party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”].)

All parties including Sellers were properly served with the subject motion and no opposition has been filed.

Brokers’ evidence is sufficient to establish that the settlement is in good faith.

3. Ruling

The motion is granted.

2