Drew Dyas, et al v. City of Fairhope, et al, No. 11-11678 (11th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-11545 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JAN 17, 2012 ________________________ JOHN LEY CLERK 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, 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 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
