A dispute over a shared home can continue long after a relationship ends, particularly when disagreements over property ownership turn into lengthy legal proceedings. In Sausalito, California, a former couple’s fight over a house led to a separate dispute over attorney fees after one partner partly succeeded in getting allegations against him struck from a lawsuit. The legal battle took another turn when he sought $90,010 from his former partner to cover his legal expenses. In its October 30, 2026, order in Fotsch v. Shroder, available in Justia, the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted the request in part, ordering Mackenzie Fotsch to pay Matthew Shroder $66,192.50 while rejecting his demand for additional, unspecified fees.
Dispute centred on a Sausalito property
Mackenzie Fotsch and Matthew Shroder, who were formerly in a romantic relationship, became involved in litigation concerning a house in Sausalito. Their dispute included an unlawful-detainer action that Shroder had filed and pursued against Fotsch. Fotsch subsequently brought claims against Shroder, including allegations involving contract disputes, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion. Shroder responded with a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP law.The law protects people from lawsuits targeting their exercise of constitutionally protected rights, including participation in legal proceedings. Shroder argued that certain allegations in Fotsch’s complaint relied on his protected litigation activities. The court partly agreed, striking portions of four allegations to the extent that they made his filing, service and prosecution of the unlawful-detainer action a basis for liability. Those allegations could remain in the complaint as background and evidence. However, it refused to dismiss the entire claims and allowed the unjust-enrichment claim to proceed.
Shroder sought $90,010 in legal expenses
Following his partial success, Shroder sought attorney fees and costs under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which allows a defendant who prevails on a special motion to strike to recover reasonable legal expenses. His application totalled $90,010. This included $45,685 for the anti-SLAPP motion, $40,720 for preparing and arguing the subsequent attorney-fee motion, and $3,605 in Westlaw legal research charges. He also requested additional fees that might arise later.The application covered work by three lawyers and a paralegal, whose hourly rates ranged from $225 to $900. Fotsch challenged the amount, arguing that Shroder had achieved only limited success because the court had allowed her claims to survive. She also questioned the billing records, the hours claimed and the expenses associated with preparing the fee application. She proposed limiting the award to $3,593, or at most $7,129.50, based on the portions of the anti-SLAPP motion that had succeeded. She also opposed the research charges and the request for unspecified future fees.
Court reduced the claimed attorney fees
The judge recognised that Shroder had not secured everything he requested. The court had rejected his attempt to strike entire claims and had allowed the unjust-enrichment claim to continue. However, it found that removing the unlawful-detainer proceedings as a basis for liability and damages had materially narrowed the issues in the lawsuit.Rather than calculating fees solely according to the proportion of allegations struck, the court deducted time associated with unsuccessful portions of the motion. It also removed an hour spent correcting an over-length reply brief. The court consequently approved $40,887.50 in attorney fees for the anti-SLAPP proceedings. It allowed the full $3,605 in Westlaw research expenses, finding that the charges were supported by itemised records and related to the legal issues.The judge separately examined the $40,720 requested for preparing the attorney-fee motion. The work involved 66.8 hours, including 63.4 hours by the principal drafter, nearly twice the 33.9 hours he had spent drafting the original anti-SLAPP motion. The court considered this excessive. It also noted that parts of the application repeated arguments already decided and included discussions of the lawyers’ professional backgrounds and criticism of opposing counsel. The court therefore reduced the principal lawyer’s claimed time by 50 per cent, bringing the recoverable fees for the fee application to $21,700.
Final award fixed at $66,192.50
The court ordered Fotsch to pay Shroder $62,587.50 in attorney fees, comprising $40,887.50 for the anti-SLAPP proceedings and $21,700 for the fee application. An additional $3,605 was allowed for legal research costs. The judge rejected Shroder’s request for further, unquantified attorney fees, requiring any additional expenses to be specified and supported. The October 30 order resolves the attorney-fee dispute, not the underlying disagreement over the Sausalito property. Fotsch’s remaining claims were not dismissed, and the ruling does not determine the ultimate outcome of the former partners’ wider legal battle.
