Law & Justice

California Judge Orders Former Partner to Pay $66,192.50 in Attorney Fees After Partial Anti‑SLAPP Victory

By TOI World Desk

In Sausalito, California, a former couple’s dispute over a house has led to a separate legal‑fee battle. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in its October 30, 2026 order in Fotsch v. Shroder, granted part of Matthew Shroder’s request for attorney fees. The court ordered Mackenzie Fotsch to pay Shroder $66,192.50, while rejecting his demand for additional, unspecified fees.

The case began when Shroder filed an unlawful‑detainer action against Fotsch. Fotsch counter‑claimed, alleging contract disputes, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion. Shroder moved to strike portions of Fotsch’s complaint under California’s anti‑SLAPP law, arguing that some allegations were based on his protected litigation activities. The court struck four allegations that linked Shroder’s filing, service and prosecution of the unlawful‑detainer action to liability, but it allowed the unjust‑enrichment claim to proceed.

After the partial success, Shroder sought $90,010 in legal expenses under the anti‑SLAPP statute. The amount included $45,685 for the anti‑SLAPP motion, $40,720 for preparing and arguing the subsequent attorney‑fee motion, and $3,605 for Westlaw research. He also requested additional future fees. Fotsch challenged the amount, arguing that only limited success had been achieved and questioning the billing records.

The judge reduced the fee award. It approved $40,887.50 for the anti‑SLAPP proceedings and allowed the full $3,605 for Westlaw research. The $40,720 requested for the fee‑motion preparation was deemed excessive; the court cut the principal lawyer’s time by 50%, reducing that portion to $21,700. The final award was $62,587.50 in attorney fees ($40,887.50 anti‑SLAPP + $21,700 fee‑motion) plus $3,605 for research, totaling $66,192.50. The court rejected Shroder’s request for further unquantified fees.

The order resolves the attorney‑fee dispute but does not settle the underlying property dispute. Fotsch’s remaining claims remain in the case.