FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 30, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 06- 11961 & 06- 14817 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 3 2 6 - C V- T - 2 7 - MAP D O U G L A S S . C A R T E R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s D I A M O N D B A C K G O L F C L U B , I N C ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 30, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

D ou gl as S . C art er(“ C art er ”) fi l ed sui tagai nsthi s f orm erem pl oyer , D i am on db ac k G ol f C l ub , Inc. (“ D i am on db ac k”), for r el i gi ou s di sc ri m i nat i on un der T itle V I I o f

th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e , et se q . , as am ended by the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1991, 42 U . S . C . § 1981a ( “ T i t l e V I I ” ) , a nd the F l or i da C iv il R ig h ts A c t, F la . S ta t. §§ 76 0. 01 –7 60 . 11 . P re vi ou sl y, w e vac at ed the di stri ct court ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of D i am on db ac k o n the grou nd s that C a r t e rha d “ pr e s e nt [ e d] c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e of a m i xe d m ot i ve on D i am on db ac k’ s part . ” C art erv. D i am on db ack G ol f C l ub , Inc. , N o. 12422, s l i p op. a t 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . A p r . 1 , 2 0 0 5 ) . O n r e m a nd, the di s tr i c tc our tc ons i de r e d D i a m ondba c k’ s r e ne w e d m ot i on f or sum m ary j ud gm entand h el d thatC art erhad p re se nt ed ci rc um st ant i al evi dence s uf f i c i e ntt o r a i s e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c ttha tr e l i gi on w a s a m ot i va t i ng fa ct or i n D i am on db ac k’ s dec i si on t o fi re hi m . T he di stri ctcourtal so det erm i ned th a t if C a r te rw e r e to c o n v in c e th e ju ry th a t r e lig io n w a s a m o tiv a tin g f a c to rin h is t erm i nat i on , and D i am on db ac k succe ss ful l y r ai se d a “ sa m e dec i si on ” def ense , C a r t e rw oul d be l i m i t e d t o s e e ki ng a tt orne y ’ s f e e s a nd c os t s . T he c our the l d, w i tho utconsi deri ng the part i cul arfa ct s of the ca se , thatC art ercoul d n otse ek decl ar at ory or i nj un ct i ve re l i ef because he di d n otspec i fi ca l l y r equestdecl ar at ory ori nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

i n hi s c om pl a i nt . T he di s tr i c tc our tc hos e nott o c ons trueWe reviewthe district court’s c onclusion that Carter w as not entitled to decla ratory or 1 injunctive relief de novo , as it was a c onclusion of law . Miles v. Naval Av iation Museum Found., 3 l an g u ag e i n th e co m p l ai n treq u est i n g “ su ch o th er rel i ef as th i s C o u rtd eem s j u st a n d p r o p e r ” a s e n c o m p a s s in g a c la im f o rd e c la r a to ry o rin

ju n c tiv e r e lie f

. T he ca se proceeded t o tri al and a j ury r eturned a “ m i xed-m ot i ve” verdi ct es tab li sh in g th at alth o u g h re li g io n w as a m o ti v atin g fa cto r in D iam o n d b ac k ’s de c i s i on t o t e r m i na t e C a r t e r , D i a m ondba c k w oul d ha ve m a de the s a m e de c i s i on e ve n i f C a r t e r ’ s r e l i gi on ha d notbe e n c ons i de r e d. F ol l ow i ng i t s e a r l i e rl i m i t a t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc ons i de rde c l a r a t ory ori nj unc t i ve r e l i e f , butdi d de t e r m i ne thatC art eri s notent i t l ed t o att orneys ’ fe es and cost s bec ause he di d n otob t ai n at l e a s ts om e r e l i e f

on the m e r i t s of

hi s c l a i m , a nd the r e f

or e w a s nota pr e va i l i ng p a r ty . F u r th e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a w a r d a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s a n d c o s ts b e c a u s e it di d notf i nd D i a m ondba c k’ s di s c r i m i na t i on t o be pa r t i c ul a r l y e gr e gi ous , butf ound tha tC a r t e rha d e nga ge d i n w r ongdoi ng of hi s ow n tha tr e s ul t e d i n hi s t e r m i na t i on. I n th e s e c o n s o lid a te d ap p e a ls , C a r te ra r g u e s th a t ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in rul i ng tha ti tne e d notc ons i de rde c l a r a t ory a nd i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f , a nd ( 2) tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o ra tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s a n d c o s ts . I. T he di stri ctcourtshou l d n othave deni ed decl ar at ory a nd i nj un ct i ve re l i ef m e r e ly b e c a u s e C a r te rf a ile d to s p e c if

ic a lly r e q u e s t s u c h r e lie f in h is c o m p la in t. 1Inc., 289 F.3d 715, 720 ( 11th Cir.2002). Diamondbac k correctly states that the standa

rd of review f or a pp lic atio n o f R

ule54 is “wh e ther t

hedis tric t c ourt

wa s c le arly

e rron e ou s in

its fac tual finding s and whe ther it abused its traditional discretion to locate a just result in light of the circumstances pe culiar to the c ase.”Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody , 422 U.S. 405, 424-25, 95 S. Ct . 2363, 2375, 45 L . Ed. 2d 280 (1975) ( internal quotation marks a nd citation omitted). Ho wever, thedis tric t c ourt did no t a pp e ar to c on side r t

hefac ts o r c irc ums tanc e s o f t hisc a sein limit ing Ca

rter’ s remedy, but instead came to the leg al conc lusion that itwould not consider decla ratory or injunctive re lief bec ause they had not been reque sted. 4 P ur s ua ntt o R ul e 54( c ) of the F e de r a l R ul e s of

C i vi l P r oc e dur e , a c our tm a y gr a nt such re l i ef

as i s proper not w i thst andi ng the fa i l ure of aparty t o d em and such rel i ef in th e p le a d in g s . Se e H ol t C i v i c C l ub v . C i t

y of T us c al oos a, 439 U . S . 60, 65- 66, 99 S . C t . 383, 387, 58 L . E d. 2d 292 ( 1978) . U nde rR ul e 54( c ) a nd T i t l e V I I , the di stri ctcourthas broad di sc re t i on i n fas hi on i ng re l i ef t o achi eve the broad p urpo se s of the C i vi l R i ght s A c ta nd ha s a uthor i ty t o a w a r d appr opr i a t e r e l i e f di c t a t e d by e v id e n c e , “e v e n th o u g h it m a y n o t h a v e b e e n s o u g h t in p le a d in g s .” F i t zger ald v. Si rloi n S tockade, Inc. , 6 2 4 F .2 d 9 4 5 , 9 5 7 ( 1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ) ; R i v e rs v . W as hi ngton C ou nt y B d. of E du c. , 77 0 F . 2d 10 10 , 10 12 (11t h C i r. 19 85 ) ( “ T he di stri ctcourthas b r o a d , e q u itab le d is c r e tio n to g r a n t a n y e q u itab le r e lie f it d e e m s ap p r o p r ia te to m a ke pe r s ons w hol e f

ori nj ur i e s s uf

f e r e d on a c c ountof

unl a w f ul e m pl oy m e nt d is c r im in a tio n .” ) ; See a l so 10 C harl es A l an W ri gh t , A rthu r R . M i l l er& M ary K ay K a n e , Feder alP ract i ce an d P roce du re § 2 66 4 (3d ed. 19 98 ). T he di stri ctcourt ’ s ordernam es as i t s s ol e r ea son for l i m i t i ng C art er ’ s r el i ef t o att orneys ’ fe es and cost s that he di d n otre qu es tdecl ar at ory or i nj un ct i ve re l i ef5

i n hi s c om pl a i nt . T he pl a i n l a ngua ge of R ul e 54( c ) r e qui r e s c our t s t o “ gr a ntthe r e lie f to w h ic h th e p a r ty in w h o s e f a v o rit is r e n d e r e d is e n title d , e v e n if th e p a r ty ha s notde m a nde d s uc h r e l i e f i n the pa r ty ’ s pl e a di ngs . ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 54( c ) . T he f a c ttha tC a r t e r ’ s c om pl a i ntha d nots pe c i f i c a l l y r e que s t e d de c l a r a t ory ori nj unc t i ve r e lie f d o e s n o t f

o r e c lo s e th e ira v a ilab ility . R u le 5 4 r e q u ir e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to grantthe re l i ef

t o w hi ch ea ch pl ai nt i ff

i s e nt i t l ed, even i f thatre l i ef i s notre qu es t ed in th e c o m p la in t. N ot a bl y , 42 U . S . C . §§ 2000e - 5( g) ( 2) ( B ) l i m i t s the r e l i e f a va i l a bl e i n a m i xed-m ot i ve ca se : the di stri ctcourt“ m ay grantdecl ar at ory r el i ef , i nj un ct i ve re l i ef . . . , a n d a tto rn e y 's f

e e s a n d c o s ts d e m o n s tr a te d to b e d ir e c tly a ttr ib u tab le o n ly to the pur s ui tof

” a m i xe d m ot i ve c l a i m . W hi l e w e a c know l e dge tha ti ti s w i thi n the di sc re t i on of the di stri ctcourtun der T i t l e V II not t o gr a ntde c l a r a t ory ori nj unc t i ve rel i ef, i n th i s case w e can n o td et erm i n e w h eth er th e d i stri ctco u rtreach ed “ a ‘ j u st re sul t ’ i n l i gh tof the ci rc um st ance s pec ul i art o the ca se , ” A lbe m ar l e P ape rC o. , 4 2 2 U .S . a t 4 2 4 , 9 5 S . C t. a t 2 3 7 5 , b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ap p e a rto c o n s id e rth e f

a c ts o f th e c a s e in m a k in g its d e te r m in a tio n . A c c o r d in g ly , w e v a c a te the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e ntw i th r e ga r d t o de c l a r a t ory a nd i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f , a nd r e m a nd f ora c ons i de r a t i on of

a va i l a bl e r e m e di e s ba s e d on the f a c t s a ndIn s o h olding , w emakeno judgment a s towh e ther de c lara tor y or inj un c tiv ere lie f i s 2 appropriate in this case. “ Injunctive re lief may not be available in a g iven ca se . . ., but it will be availablein some situations.” Canup v. Chapman-Union, Inc . , 123 F.3d 1440, 1444 ( 11th Cir. 1997). 6 ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e. 2 II. B e c a us e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rde ny i ng a tt orne y s ’ f e e s a nd c os t s de pe nds i n pa r ton C a r t e r ’ s f

a i l ur e t o obt a i n de c l a r a t ory ori nj unc t i ve r e l i e f , C a r t e r ’ s m ot i on f ora tt orne y s ’ f

e e s a nd c os t s s houl d be r e c ons i de r e d on r e m a nd a s w e l l . A s the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y not e s , one of the c ons i de r a t i ons i n de t e r m i ni ng e nt i t l e m e nt to f e e s is th e e x is te n c e o ra w a r d o f d e c la r a to ry o rin

ju n c tiv e r e lie f

. Se e C anup , 123 F . 3d a t1444. A c c or di ngl y , a l though w e a gr e e w i th the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e l i a nc e on ourpr e c e de nti n C anup , 1 2 3 F .3 d 1 4 4 0 , w e v ac ate a n d re m an d th e d istrict co u rt’s o r d e rd e n y in g a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s a n d c o s ts f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n f

o llo w in g its consi dera t i on of decl ar at ory a nd i nj un ct i ve re l i ef . V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.