FAIRHOPE, Ala. - Last Wednesday, a federal judge in Mobile turned down the city of Fairhope and Mayor Tim Kant’s effort to recover $1.2 million in attorney’s fees from the plaintiffs in the “Dyas triangle” lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge William S. Steele, who issued the eight-page order on March 9 denying the defendants’ request for attorney’s fees in the complex lawsuit, also sent the case back to Baldwin County Circuit Court for trial, where it was initially filed in April 2008.

“The Dyases are looking forward to trying all of their claims in Baldwin County relating to the city’s efforts to undermine the development of their property by rerouting traffic and approving a competing Village Center across the street for Arthur Corte,” Matt McDonald, attorney for the plaintiff Dyas family, said Tuesday. “The family is committed to ensuring that both of these matters are eventually tried in front of a Baldwin County jury.”

Last December, the court dismissed all federal claims and all but two of the state claims against the defendants. Those state claims of breach of contract and negligence will be the ones tried in circuit court in Bay Minette.

The defendants argued that the claims dismissed by the court were frivolous and thus met the legal requirements to justify the recovery of attorney’s fees.

Steele’s order concluded that the defendants did not show that all the elements of a frivolous claim were met, which, if shown, could have resulted in attorney’s fees being awarded.

Caine O’Rear, of the Hand Arendall law firm in Mobile and lead attorney for the defendants, did not respond to a request for comment.

McDonald, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, is a partner in the Mobile law firm of Jones Walker, where one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Eric Dyas, is also an attorney and partner.

“The Dyas family respects and agrees with the Court’s Order uniformly denying the city’s and Mayor Kant’s request for attorneys’ fees,” McDonald said. “The Dyas family’s claims for breach of contract and negligence, which the Court has authorized to move forward to trial, are based largely on the same conduct that gave rise to the constitutional claims that were dismissed. It is, therefore, not surprising for the Court to have denied the motion.”