
    Barbara HOLLAND, d.b.a. Choice Video, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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.
    No. 06-16187
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    March 30, 2007.
    Malcolm R. Newman, Dothan, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jeffrey Monroe Grantham, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Michael Todd Sans-bury, Howard P. Walthall, Jr., Joseph W. Letzer, Burr & Forman LLP, Daniel J. Burnick, Sirote & Permutt, Randall D. Quarles, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLC, John Thomas A. Malatesta, Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, Robert K. Spotswood, Spotswood, LLC, Birmingham, AL, Alan
    C. Livingston, Lee & Mclnish, Dothan, AL, Todd Andrew Fuson, R. Joseph Decker, Prindle Decker & Amaro, LLP, Long Beach, CA, Paul J. Cambria, Jr., Lipsitz, Green, Scime, Cambria LLP, Buffalo, NY, Cari Katrice Dawson, Adam Jeremy Biegel, Rebecca Brown Crawford, Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for DefendantsAppellees.
    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., 189 Fed.Appx. 893 (11th Cir.2006) and Clark v. MGA, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 723 (11th Cir.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 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in Carter, 189 Fed.Appx. 893 (11th Cir.2006). 
      
      . 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.
      
     
      
      . 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.
     