Charles L. Dyas, Jr., et al v. City of Fairhope, et al

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAN 17, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-11545
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-00232-WS-N
CHARLES L. DYAS, JR.,
ARTHUR C. DYAS,
PAMELA D. VAUTIER,
DREW C. DYAS,
ERIC J. DYAS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CITY OF FAIRHOPE,
TIMOTHY M. KANT,
DAVID YORK,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
No. 11-11678
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-00232-WS-N
CHARLES L. DYAS, JR.,
ARTHUR C. DYAS,
PAMELA D. VAUTIER,

-- 1 of 3 --

DREW C. DYAS,
ERIC J. DYAS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
CITY OF FAIRHOPE,
TIMOTHY M. KANT,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(January 17, 2012)
Before CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges, and ROTHSTEIN, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
After review and oral argument, we AFFIRM the district court’s order,
dated December 14, 2010, granting the City of Fairhope and Timothy M. Kant’s
motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ federal claims for equal protection
and due process violations and for conspiracy to violate those civil rights and on
the plaintiffs’ state law claims for breach of contract and negligence. We also
Honorable Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, United States District Judge for the Western*
District of Washington, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

affirm the district court’s order, dated March 9, 2011, denying the City of Fairhope
and Timothy M. Kant’s motion for recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs, for the
reasons outlined in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned order.
As to the defendants’ attorneys’ fees claim, we note that the district court
has broad discretion in ruling upon such a motion. Quintana v. Jenne, 414 F.3d
1306, 1309 (11th Cir. 2005); Sullivan v. School Bd. of Pinellas County, 773 F.2d
1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 1985); see also In re Rasbury, 24 F.3d 159, 168 (11th Cir.
1994) (“[U]nder the abuse of discretion standard of review there will be occasions
in which we affirm the district court even though we would have gone the other
way had it been our call.”). Here, we cannot say the district court abused its
discretion.
AFFIRMED
3

-- 3 of 3 --