Barbara Holland v. MGA, Inc., No. 06-16187 (11th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAR 30, 2007 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK No. 06-16187 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ 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

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.