
    BROOKSHIRE BROTHERS HOLDING INC.; Brookshire Brothers Management Inc.; Brookshire Brothers Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Tony ADAMSON; Homer Holden; Jay Wright, Defendants-Appellees; Brookshire Brothers Holding Inc.; Brookshire Brothers Management Inc.; Brookshire Brothers Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Jim Lawrence, Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 06-30586, 06-30968.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 10, 2007.
    Michael H. Schwartzberg, Vamvoras & Schwartzberg, Lake Charles, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    
      Nancy Scott Degan, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Plaintiffs-Appellants Brookshire Brothers Holding, Inc., Brookshire Brothers Management, Inc., and Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. (collectively, “Brookshire”) appeal the district court’s judgments dismissing their claims against Defendants-Appellees Tony Adam-son, Homer Holden, Jay Wright, and Jim Lawrence (collectively, “Defendants”) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court, however, dismissed the action against Defendants on two independent grounds: (1) failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6); and (2) lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). On appeal, Brookshire does not purport to challenge the district court’s dismissals based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Consequently, we dismiss these appeals. Cf. John Doe # 1 v. Veneman, 380 F.3d 807, 814 (5th Cir.2004) (recognizing that “ ‘a federal court has neither the power to render advisory opinions nor to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them’ ”) (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401, 95 S.Ct. 2330, 45 L.Ed.2d 272 (1975) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . Other defendants are named in this suit, but the Rule 54(b) judgments appealed from only concern the dismissals of Brookshire’s claims against Defendants.
     