[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAR 30, 2007
No. 06-16187 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00237-CV-W-S
BARBARA HOLLAND,
d.b.a. Choice Video,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MGA, INC., and all Holding Companies and
affiliated Entities d.b.a. Movie Gallery,
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., (UPS),
SELECT MEDIA SERVICES, LLC,
MILE HIGH MEDIA, INC.,
LFP, INC.,
DIGITAL SIN, INC.,
FRASERSIDE HOLDING, LTD.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
_________________________
(March 30, 2007)
Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Barbara Holland (“Holland”) appeals the district court’s order granting
motions to dismiss filed by defendants, MGA, Inc.; United Parcel Service, Inc.;
Select Media Services, LLC; LFP, Inc.; Mile High Media, Digital Sin, Inc.; and
Fraserside Holding, LTD. Holland’s counsel filed six identical suits, including this
one, against the same defendants in district courts in Alabama and Georgia. We
previously affirmed the district court’s dismissal in two of the suits: Carter v.
MGA, Inc., Nos. 05-15402 & 05-16523 (11th Cir. Jul. 13, 2006) and Clark v.
MGA, Inc., No. 06-12857 (11th Cir. Nov. 29, 2006). A third case is currently
pending before us: Whitaker v. MGA, Inc., No. 06-15025 (11th Cir. filed Sep. 13,
2006). Holland’s claims and allegations are identical to those in Carter, in which
we affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim.1 Accordingly,
we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in Carter,
Nos. 05-15402 & 05-16523 (11th Cir. Jul. 13, 2006).2
1
The argument in Holland’s brief in this appeal is identical to the arguments in the briefs
Holland’s counsel submitted on appeal in Carter, Clark, and Whitaker.
2
We also grant appellees’ motions for damages and costs filed pursuant to Fed. R. App.
P. 38 and remand this case to the district court to determine the fees and costs to be awarded.
2