After review and oral argument, we AFFIRM the district court’s order, dated December 14, 2010, granting the City of Fair-hope 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 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) (“[Ujnder 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 *912 been our call.”)- Here, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion.

AFFIRMED