The judge in the Northern District of California signed the order on October 30, 2026, cutting Shroder's demand for $90,010 down to $66,192.50. It’s a massive sum, but the court found that Shroder’s legal team had been somewhat inefficient in billing for the fee application itself.
The fight stems from a Sausalito home that the ex-partners now claim as their own. Shroder had filed an unlawful-detainer action, prompting Fotsch to counter-sue for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. He then invoked California’s anti-SLAPP statute to strike claims that he argued were actually just retaliation for his protected litigation activities. The judge agreed with him on some points, stripping away allegations that used his filing of the eviction suit as a basis for liability, but let the unjust-enrichment claim survive.
Shroder’s lawyers billed $45,685 for that motion and another $40,720 just to ask for those fees. The judge looked at the time sheets. One lawyer spent 63.4 hours drafting the fee application—nearly double the time he spent on the original motion. That’s inefficient. The court slashed that portion by 50 percent, awarding only $21,700 for the fee request itself.
Fotsch argued she should pay only $3,593, claiming Shroder didn’t win enough to justify the bill. The judge disagreed, noting that removing the unlawful-detainer allegations materially narrowed the lawsuit. She will pay $40,887.50 for the original anti-SLAPP work, plus $3,605 in Westlaw research costs. The underlying property dispute continues, but Fotsch now has a hefty bill to settle first.