[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-11287

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cv-00123-WBH

STARSHIP ENTERPRISES OF ATLANTA, INC., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COWETA COUNTY, GEORGIA,

EVA WAGNER,

in her individual and official capacity, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(February 14, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 1 of 22 
2

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:

Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc. (“Starship”), a purveyor of various 

novelty items including sexually explicit materials, appeals the judgment of the 

District Court dismissing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) its federal 

constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 19831 against Coweta County, 

Georgia, and Eva Wagner, the Coweta County Business License Director,

2 and 

refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state constitutional claims.3

 

Starship’s claims stem from the County’s decision to uphold Wagner’s denial of its 

application for a business license to operate a retail bookstore. Starship promptly 

challenged that decision in two courts. First, Starship petitioned the Superior 

Court of Coweta County for a writ of mandamus directing the County and Wagner 

to grant its license application. Then, four months later, it brought in the United 

 

1

 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides, in relevant part: 

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or 

usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to 

be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the 

jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities 

secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an 

action at law, suit in equity, or other proceeding for redress.

2

 Starship sued Wagner in her official and individual capacities. Starship appeals the 

judgment for Wagner in her individual capacity. 

3

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has 

original jurisdiction.”).

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 2 of 22 
3

States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia the action now before us 

on appeal. While this action was still in the pleading stage, the Superior Court 

granted Starship a writ of mandamus, and Wagner issued the business license at 

issue. The District Court then dismissed Starship’s complaint, concluding that the 

§ 1983 claims arising from denial of the business license were barred by the 

doctrine of res judicata and that the § 1983 claims not barred by the doctrine failed 

as a matter of law. We find no error in the District Court’s disposition of 

Starship’s § 1983 claims and the court’s decision not to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over Starship’s state law claims and therefore affirm.

I. 

We begin with a recitation of the relevant facts, which, for the most part, are 

not in dispute.4

 Starship describes itself as a commercial business that sells a wide 

variety of items, including tobacco products, clothing, and novelty items. In 

addition, it sells some sexually explicit videos, DVDs, and magazines. Starship’s 

stores vary their inventory, use of floor space, and sales of sexually explicit 

material to comply with local ordinances under which the stores operate.

 

4

 We take the facts from Starship’s first amended complaint, as amended, and the 

documents Coweta County and Wagner attached to their motion to dismiss and their answer. 

The District Court considered those documents in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 3 of 22 
4

In April 2008, Starship leased an empty building in an unincorporated area 

of Coweta County; it had been used as a gym. Starship planned to renovate the 

building and turn it into a retail store. On May 12, 2008, Starship’s attorney wrote 

a letter advising the County Attorney that, pursuant to Chapter 18, Art. II, of the 

Coweta County Ordinances (the “Business License Ordinance”), Starship planned 

to apply for a general business license to operate the store. He was aware that if 

the store sold a certain amount of adult material, the county would consider it a 

sexually oriented business and Starship would not be able to obtain a general 

business license. Instead, it would have to obtain a license pursuant to Chapter 18, 

Art. VII, of the Coweta County Ordinances (the “Sexually Oriented Business 

Ordinance”). Anticipating this situation, Starship’s attorney represented that 

Starship would not be operating a facility that met the ordinance’s definition of a 

sexually oriented business.5

 

On July 17, 2008, Starship’s chief executive officer and its attorney met with 

Coweta County officials, including the County Attorney, to explain Starship’s

business plan and to affirm that it would limit the sexually explicit material the 

 

5

 At the time of Starship’s application, Coweta County’s Sexually Oriented Business 

Ordinance defined an adult bookstore as one having as a “‘substantial business purpose’ the 

offering of materials which are intended to provide sexual stimulation or sexual gratification to 

customers, and which are distinguished by or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting, 

describing or relating to specified sexual activities, or specified anatomical areas.” “Substantial 

business purpose” was defined as involving 25 percent or more of floor area, gross sales, or 

employee full-time equivalents. Record, vol. 1, no. 16, at 3–4.

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 4 of 22 
5

store sold so as to eliminate the need for a license for a sexually oriented business. 

Starship needed a general business license because if it were to operate a sexually 

oriented business, it could not obtain a permit to operate its store at the location

under lease, which was not zoned to allow a sexually oriented business. Nor could 

it obtain a building permit to renovate the building it had leased. 

Despite the County’s doubt that Starship’s store could qualify for a general 

business license, the County Attorney wrote Starship’s counsel on November 18, 

2008, stating that if Starship was not going to operate a sexually oriented business, 

the County could not deny Starship the building permit it needed. In late 

November, the County issued the permit.

Starship thereafter contacted Eva Wagner, the Coweta County Business 

License Director, about applying for a general business license. She said that an 

application would not be accepted until the renovations to the premises were 

complete and a Certificate of Occupancy issued. Within two months, the 

renovation was completed, at a cost of $150,000, and on January 19, 2009, a 

Certificate of Occupancy was issued. 

Meanwhile, on January 15, Starship’s attorney met with the County 

Attorney, Wagner, and other county officials. Counsel presented the officials with 

a diagram of the store, which showed where the adult material would be located on 

the premises. Wagner informed the attorney that a general business license would 

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 5 of 22 
6

issue after Starship fully stocked the store in accordance with the diagram. On 

January 20, Starship filed its application for a general business license, and by 

January 28, it had completed stocking the store. Wagner was scheduled to visit the 

store on January 28 to view its inventory to determine whether it had been placed 

as depicted in the diagram, but she failed to appear.

On January 26, the Coweta County Board of Commissioners repealed the 

Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance, Coweta County, Ga., Code of Ordinances

Ch. 18, art. VII (2000), and adopted a Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance 

containing a new definition of a sexually oriented business, Coweta County, Ga., 

Code of Ordinances Ch. 18, art. VII (2009). As described by Starship’s attorney at 

his July 17 and January 15 meetings with county officials, Starship’s store would

not have been a sexually oriented business under the repealed ordinance. If 

operated as stocked on January 26, however, the store would qualify as a sexually 

oriented business under the new ordinance and, as such, would not qualify for a 

general business license. 

On February 2, Starship’s attorney wrote the County Commissioners a letter 

stating that Starship planned to rearrange the store’s inventory so that it would not 

constitute a sexually oriented business under the new Sexually Oriented Business 

Ordinance and thus would qualify for a general business license. On February 6, 

Wagner, applying the new Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance, denied 

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 6 of 22 
7

Starship’s application for a general business license; she concluded that even 

though the inventory had been arranged in accordance with the diagram shown 

earlier, the store would be operating as a sexually oriented business under the new 

ordinance. 

On February 18, Starship appealed denial of its business license application

to the Coweta County Business and Occupational Tax Rate Review and Appeals 

Committee (the “Appeals Committee”). The Appeals Committee held a series of 

hearings concerning the denial. On May 20, the committee issued findings of fact 

and voted 4 to 1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners reverse 

the denial of Starship’s application. The Appeals Committee assumed that the 

store would be operated as depicted in Starship’s attorney’s letter of February 2, 

and found that the store would not constitute a sexually oriented business as 

defined in the new ordinance; thus, the store could function as a regular business. 

The Board of County Commissioners, however, voted unanimously on June 16 to 

uphold Wagner’s denial of Starship’s application.

On July 13, 2009, Starship petitioned the Superior Court of Coweta County 

for a writ of mandamus. The court granted the writ on April 19, 2010. Adopting 

the Appeals Committee’s finding as to how Starship planned to operate the store, 

the court reversed the Board of Commissioners’ decision affirming Wagner’s 

denial of the business license and ordered that the license issue. 

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 7 of 22 
8

At the time the Superior Court concluded the mandamus proceeding, 

Starship’s lawsuit in the District Court against the County and Wagner, which had 

been pending since November 16, 2009, was still in the pleading stage, awaiting 

the court’s ruling on Starship’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.

On April 28, 2010, the court granted its motion. Starship’s first amended 

complaint, as amended, contained ten causes of action;

6 eight sought legal and 

 

6 Starship’s first amended complaint, as amended, alleged:

Causes of Action

92. Bill of Attainder. The combined legislative and executory acts of the

County Commissioners of Coweta County in establishing laws which were

then retroactively applied by the Commissioners and by Wagner to Starship

to prevent Starship’s business operation when the business license

application, and then the appeal of the denial of the business license came

before them constituted a violation of Article I, Section 10 of the United

States Constitution, and Ga. Constitution, Article I, Section I, Paragraph X,

as constituting a bill of attainder. The Coweta County Obscenity Ordinance

of January 26, 2009, and the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance of

January 26, 2009, are each unconstitutional bills of attainder as applied to

Plaintiff.

93. Substantive Due Process. The combined legislative and executory acts of

the County Commissioners of Coweta County in establishing laws which were

then retroactively applied to Starship to prevent its business operation when the

denial of the business license appeal came before them constituted a violation

of the substantive due process component of the Fourteenth Amendment of the

United States Constitution.

94. First Amendment United States Constitution as Written and Applied. 

Application of the ordinances adopted by the County Commission in January

of 2009, in the manner described within this Complaint, constituted an “as

applied” breach of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Additionally, in their actual writing, the provisions of Section 18-241

pertaining to and defining “adult bookstore or adult video store” constituted

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 8 of 22 
9

 

impermissible content based discrimination on its face in violation of the

14th and 1st Amendments of the United States Constitution.

95. Due Process Violation As Applied. Application of the ordinances

constituted an ‘as applied’ breach of the guarantees of the Constitution of the

State of Georgia and the Constitution of the United States to procedural due

process.

96. Advertising Sanctions as Breach of Georgia and United States

Constitutions. The advertising criteria of the ordinance by which the County

imposes the securing of an adult business license [along with the concomitant

site restrictions ] upon any business using certain words in its advertising

constitutes a violation of the Georgia Constitution Art I, Sec. I, Para 1 and 5

and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

97. Ordinance Violates First Amendment Where No Time Limit. The county 

ordinance provisions concerning the issuance of, or denial of a business license, 

effectively vested unfettered discretion to the county decision maker where

criteria not provided for in the County’s ordinances was used in denying

Starship’s application. Furthermore the county ordinance failed to contain a

limit on the amount of time within which the decision maker would issue or 

deny the license was and remains unconstitutional, both facially and as

applied.

98. Wagner Individual and Official Liability for First and Fourteenth

Amendment Breach. Wagner’s rejection of Plaintiff’s business license

constituted a violation of the Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment

rights. Wagner’s actions constituted a prior restraint in contravention of the

First Amendment and constituted content based discrimination against 

Plaintiff’s protected First Amendment activity in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. Wagner’s rejection and her 

reasons for same were upheld by and ratified by the Coweta County

Commission reflective of the fact that her conduct was authorized, condoned

and ratified by the County Commission and her conduct was an effectuation

of County policy.

99. Denial of Equal Protection: At the time Starship’s business license

application was presented to Wagner, the decision to deny a certificate to any

business could be based only upon a determination by the director that the

“business engaged in unlawful activity or in such a manner as to violate lawful

ordinances adopted by the board of commissioners.” Sec. 18-41, Ordinances

of Coweta County, 2009.

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 9 of 22 
10

equitable relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the defendants’ alleged infringement of 

 

a. Up to the point in time that the Starship submitted its application for a

business license, Coweta County applied the above-described criteria to all

businesses seeking business licenses.

b. Starship’s business license application was treated differently from other 

persons and businesses applying for business licenses. When it applied for

the business license it was not “engaged in unlawful activity or in such a

manner as to violate lawful ordinances adopted by the Board of

Commissioners.”

c. There was no rational basis for the difference in treatment between Starship

and other applicants for business licenses.

d. The Defendants, and each of them, unequally applied the ordinances

pertaining to business license approval and denial for the purpose of

discriminating against Starship. 

e. The Defendants’ willful denial of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights as

demonstrated by the unequal treatment of Starship requires the use by this

Court of strict scrutiny in the assessment of the Defendants’ conduct.

100. Substantive and Procedural Due Process Under Georgia Law: The Code of 

Ordinances of Coweta County has no written guidelines by which the Board of 

Commissioners are to exercise their consideration of an appeal processed

through the Appeals Committee and no criteria by which they are to sustain

or reverse or otherwise reconsider the denial of a business license. The lack of

ascertainable standards by which to sustain or deny an appeal to the

Commission renders the appeal procedure arbitrary and capricious and as

applied violate the right to due process.

101. Starship’s inability to obtain a business license from Coweta County was

the result of the content of the stock and trade of Starship’s business.

102. Takings Under the Georgia Constitution. The leasehold interest which 

Starship held at the time of the actions of the Defendants constituted a property

interest for purposes of Georgia law. Starship’s planned use of its leasehold

property was a use for which the leased property was proper pursuant to the

zoning laws of Coweta County at the time of the submission of the business

license application. After the adoption of the new ordinances on January

26, 2009, Starship’s planned use of its leasehold property was no longer a

use which the County was going to allow. Wagner’s formal denial of the 

business license claimed that the “proposed location does not permit a

sexually oriented business.” The enforcement of the post- business license

submission ordinance constituted a takings of Starship’s leasehold interest,

actionable under the laws and Constitution of the State of Georgia, and

rendered the property effectively worthless to Starship.

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 10 of 22 
11

Starship’s federal constitutional rights, and two presented claims under the Georgia 

Constitution. The ten causes of action were not pled as separate counts, each with 

factual allegations germane to it. Rather, the ten causes of action were pled in 

successive paragraphs, each based on one or more constitutional provisions or 

theories of recovery, preceded by eighty-four paragraphs of factual allegations and 

a series of exhibits, which were freestanding in that none were incorporated by 

reference into any of the paragraphs asserting the causes of action.7

 For 

 

7

 Paragraphs 8 through 91 of the complaint are a “Factual Statement.” This statement 

incorporates by reference several exhibits, each attached to the complaint by number. None of 

the ten causes of action incorporates any of the allegations of paragraphs 8 through 91 or the 

attached exhibits. Consequently, it is quite difficult to know which of the allegations is germane 

to which claim. 

We have been encountering complaints like Starship’s complaint for over two decades, 

referring to them as “shotgun” pleadings. “[S]ince 1985 we have explicitly condemned shotgun 

pleadings upward of fifty times.” Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 516 F.3d 955, 979 n.54 (11th 

Cir. 2008). It appears that we haven’t said enough about the problems shotgun pleadings cause 

the administration of civil justice, so we’ll try one more time. 

“Shotgun pleadings delay cases by [w]asting scarce judicial and parajudicial resources. 

[They] imped[e] the due administration of justice, and, in a very real sense, amount to 

obstruction of justice. Although obstruction of justice is typically discussed in the context of 

criminal contempt, the concept informs the rules of law—both substantive and procedural—that 

have been devised to protect the courts and litigants (and therefore the public) from abusive 

litigation tactics, like shotgun pleadings. If use of an abusive tactic is deliberate and actually 

impedes the orderly litigation of the case, to wit: obstructs justice, the perpetrator could be cited 

for criminal contempt.” Davis, 516 F.3d at 982 n.66 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also

PVC Windoors, Inc. v. Babbitbay Beach Const., N.V., 598 F.3d 802, 806 (11th Cir. 2010) 

(“Shotgun pleadings impede the administration of the district courts’ civil dockets in countless 

ways. The district court, faced with a crowded docket and whose time is constrained by the press 

of other business, is unable to squeeze the case down to its essentials. It is therefore left to this 

court to sort out on appeal the meritorious issues from the unmeritorious ones, resulting in a 

massive waste of judicial and private resources; moreover, the litigants suffer, and society loses 

confidence in the courts' ability to administer justice.”) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). 

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 11 of 22 
12

convenience, we recast the ten causes of action into seven separate counts, as 

follows: 8

 

Count 1, Substantive Due Process. The County and Wagner deprived 

Starship of the use of its store property between the date it filed its 

application for a business license, January 20, 2009, and the date the 

Superior Court issued the writ of mandamus, April 19, 2010, in 

violation of the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of 

the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Count 2, Bill of Attainder. The County enacted two ordinances on 

January 26, 2009, for the purpose of punishing Starship because it 

sold adult materials in its stores, in violation of U.S. Const. Art. 1, 

§ 10. 

Count 3, Equal Protection. The County and Wagner denied Starship 

the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth 

Amendment in denying its application for a business license when, at 

the same time, it would have granted a business license to a similarly 

situated applicant. 

Count 4, FirstAmendment. The Business License Ordinance is 

invalid on its face, in violation of the First Amendment, because it 

 

In this case, defense counsel did not move the District Court to require Starship to file a 

more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) on the ground that the complaint was 

“so vague or ambiguous” as to render a response difficult. As officers of the court, the lawyers 

in any civil case have a duty to assist the court in narrowing the issues. Where, as here, the 

defense accepts a shotgun complaint and opts to reply to it in kind, the court must step in and 

require a repleader on its own initiative. The court’s alternative is to allow, if not tacitly 

encourage, the parties to build a pleading record of several volumes—in this case three volumes

that, taken together, are 4.25 inches thick.

8

 Because the District Court, after disposing of Starship’s federal claims, properly 

declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed them 

without prejudice, we do not recast those claims. 

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 12 of 22 
13

does not prescribe a limit of time in which the County must approve 

or reject an application for a business license.9

Count 5, First Amendment. The amount of time Wagner took to pass 

on Starship’s application for a business license under the Business 

License Ordinance deprived Starship of its First Amendment right to 

speech in displaying for sale and selling adult materials at its store.

Count 6, First Amendment. The Sexually Oriented Business 

Ordinance is invalid on its face because its regulation of adult 

bookstores regulates speech of a specific content. 

Count 7, First Amendment. Wagner denied Starship’s application for 

a business license for the purpose of preventing Starship from 

exercising speech in displaying for sale and selling adult materials at 

its bookstore.10 

The defendants moved the District Court to dismiss Starship’s complaint on 

two alternative grounds. First, the complaint failed to state a claim for relief.11 

Second, the claims it presented were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because 

Starship could have asserted those claims in the petition for writ of mandamus it 

filed and litigated in the Superior Court of Coweta County. The court granted the

 

9

 Some of Starship’s First Amendment causes of action are asserted only under the First 

Amendment. We assume the pleader of the complaint intended to allege the violations under the 

First Amendment as incorporated under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S. Ct. 900, 903, 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940).

10 The complaint contains a cause of action asserting the violation of Starship’s right to 

procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Record, vol. 1, no. 16, ¶ 95. Starship 

withdrew the claim before the court ruled on the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

11 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The defendants’ answer to the complaint also alleged, as 

an affirmative defense, that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. 

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 13 of 22 
14

defendants’ motion. It held that Counts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were barred by the doctrine 

of res judicata and that Counts 2 and 6 failed to state a claim for relief. The court 

dismissed Count 2 on the ground that the ordinances cited in the complaint did not 

constitute a Bill of Attainder because the ordinances did not single out Starship for 

punishment. The court dismissed Count 6, which alleged that the Business License 

Ordinance is facially invalid, on the ground that Count 6’s “conclusory 

allegations” failed to state a claim for relief. The court then declined to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them 

without prejudice. Starship thereafter took this appeal.

II.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint, under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim for relief after 

accepting the factual allegations of the complaint as true and considering them in 

the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th 

Cir. 2003) (citing Monzon v. United States, 253 F.3d 567, 569–70 (11th Cir. 

2001)). We review a district court’s res judicata determination de novo. E.E.O.C. 

v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 383 F.3d 1280, 1285 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Jang v. 

United Techs. Corp., 206 F.3d 1147, 1149 (11th Cir. 2000)). Finally, we review 

for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal of state law claims pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). With these standards in hand, we address in part III below 

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 14 of 22 
15

the District Court’s disposition of five of the complaint’s seven counts under the 

doctrine of res judicata and deal with two of the counts in the margin.

12 We affirm 

the court’s nonprejudicial dismissal of Starship’s state law claims without 

discussion. 

III.

The District Court found that Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 were barred by the 

doctrine of res judicata.

13 When deciding whether claims are barred by res 

 

12 Starship abandoned by operation of law its appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of 

Count 6 by not addressing the merits of the ruling in its opening brief in this appeal. Access 

Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[A] legal claim or 

argument that has not been briefed before the court is deemed abandoned and its merits will not 

be addressed.”) We consider frivolous the Bill of Attainder claim in Count 2, and therefore do 

not discuss it except to say that the challenged ordinances, on their face, do not target Starship. 

Rather, they apply to any business in Coweta County. See Houston v. Williams, 547 F.3d 1357, 

1364 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 468, 97 S. Ct. 

2777, 2803, 53 L. Ed. 2d 867 (1977)) (defining a Bill of Attainder as “a law that legislatively 

determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the 

protections of a judicial trial”). 

13 Starship argues that the District Court erred in invoking the doctrine of res judicata in 

dismissing some of its claims because its complaint contained insufficient facts on which to 

adjudicate the defense. “[W]hen addressing a claim of res judicata, a court must examine the 

record to determine whether the issue has been actually or could have been litigated and to 

ascertain whether there has been a final judgment in the other proceeding.” Jones v. Gann, 703 

F.2d 513, 515 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Concordia v. Bendekovic, 693 F.2d 1073, 1076 (11th Cir. 

1982)). A party may raise the defense of res judicata in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when the 

existence of the defense can be judged from the face of the complaint. Id. Although analysis of 

a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is “limited primarily to the face of the complaint and attachments 

thereto,” a court may consider documents attached to the motion to dismiss if they are referred to 

in the complaint and are central to the plaintiff’s claim. Brooks v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of 

Florida, 116 F.3d 1364, 1369–70 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). When the court considers 

matters outside the pleadings, however, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion converts into a Rule 56 motion 

for summary judgment. Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell & Assocs, 104 F.3d 1256, 1266 n.11 (11th 

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 15 of 22 
16

judicata, federal courts apply the law of the state in which they sit. Burr & Forman 

v. Blair, 470 F.3d 1019, 1030 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing NAACP v. Hunt, 891 F.2d 

1555, 1560 (11th Cir. 1990)). This case arose in Georgia, so we apply the Georgia 

law of res judicata. In Georgia, “the doctrine of res judicata prevents the relitigation of all claims which have already been adjudicated, or which could have 

been adjudicated, between identical parties or their privies in identical causes of 

action.” James v. Intown Ventures, L.L.C., 290 Ga. 813, 816, 725 S.E.2d 213 

 

Cir. 1997). The court must notify the parties and give them ten days to submit “any relevant 

evidence and arguments in support or opposition to the merits.” Id. (citation omitted). We have

excused the ten-day requirement, however, when the “parties are aware of the court’s intent to 

consider matters outside the record and have presented all the materials and arguments they 

would have if proper notice had been given.” Id. (citation omitted).

Here, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and an 

accompanying memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss on June 4, 2010. In the 

memorandum, the defendants argued that the claims should be dismissed on res judicata 

grounds, and they attached Starship’s mandamus petition in the Superior Court and the Superior 

Court’s order granting the writ. Because Starship did not refer to the Superior Court petition or 

order in its complaint, the District Court’s consideration of those materials automatically 

converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Although we find nothing 

in the record to indicate that the District Court gave Starship ten days’ notice of its intent to 

consider matters outside the pleadings, we think Starship’s brief in opposition to the defendants’ 

motion to dismiss shows that Starship had notice that the District Court would consider the 

Superior Court petition and order, and that Starship presented the arguments it would have 

presented had it received formal notice of an intent to convert the motion into a summary 

judgment motion. Starship first argued that the District Court could not dismiss its complaint on 

res judicata grounds because the existence of the defense could not be judged on the face of the 

complaint. It then proceeded to argue that res judicata should not be granted on the merits: “Out 

of an abundance of caution, and without waiving the foregoing argument, Plaintiff will proceed 

to describe the other reasons that preclude the grant of Defendants’ motion to dismiss.” Record, 

vol. 2, no. 25, at 3–4. We thus find that Starship presented the arguments it would have 

presented had it had notice, and we treat the District Court’s dismissal of Starship’s claims on res 

judicata grounds as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Moreover, we find that the 

pleadings and the Coweta County Superior Court petition and order contained sufficient facts on 

which to adjudicate the defense. 

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 16 of 22 
17

(2012) (quoting Waldroup v. Greene Cnty Hosp. Auth., 265 Ga. 864, 865(1), 463 

S.E.2d 5 (1995)); Ga. Code Ann. § 9-12-40 (West 2012).

14

“Three prerequisites must be met before res judicata will apply: (1) identity

of the cause of action; (2) identity of the parties or their privies; and (3) previous 

adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Id. The third 

prerequisite is present here—a previous adjudication on the merits by a court of 

competent jurisdiction. Although Starship disagrees, the second prerequisite is 

present as well—an identity of the parties. Starship’s suit in the Superior Court was 

against Coweta County, Eva Wagner in her official capacity, and several members 

of the Board of Commissioners of Coweta County. Starship’s suit in federal court 

was against Coweta County and Eva Wagner in her official and individual 

capacities. An identity of parties is not present, Starship argues, because Wagner 

was not a party in the Superior Court litigation in her individual capacity. 

Starship did not present this argument to the District Court; rather, it 

presents the argument for the first time in its brief on appeal. Thus, we will not 

consider Starship’s point, unless Starship can invoke one of the five exceptions to 

 

14 Section 9-12-40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated provides:

A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the 

same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the 

rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was 

rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside.

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 17 of 22 
18

the rule that “appellate courts generally will not consider an issue or theory that 

was not raised in the district court,” FDIC v. Verez Assurance, Inc., 3 F.3d 391, 

395 (11th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). The five exceptions to the rule are: “the 

refusal to consider the pure question of law would result in a miscarriage of justice; 

the appellant had no opportunity to raise it below; there is at stake a ‘substantial 

interest of justice;’ the proper resolution is beyond any doubt; or the issue presents 

significant questions of great public concern.” Id. Starship argues that the 

miscarriage-of-justice exception applies. We do not consider the argument 

because Starship failed to present the argument in its opening brief. That it raised 

it in its reply brief will not suffice. See United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825, 830 

(11th Cir. 2000) (declining to decide an issue raised for the first time in 

supplemental briefing). We assume then, as the District Court did (because 

Starship did not contest the point), that, notwithstanding the fact that Wagner was 

not sued in her individual capacity in the mandamus proceeding, there is identity of 

parties. Whether res judicata bars Starship’s claims therefore turns on whether an 

identity as to causes of action is present as well. 

When resolving that issue, Georgia courts look to see whether the claims 

arise from the same subject matter. Fowler v. Vineyard, 261 Ga. 454, 458, 405 

S.E.2d 678 (1991). “[O]ne must assert all claims for relief concerning the same 

subject matter in one lawsuit and any claims for relief concerning that same subject 

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 18 of 22 
19

matter which are not raised will be res judicata pursuant to OCGA § 9-12-40.” Id.

(quoting Lawson v. Watkins, 69 Ga. 147, 149, 401 S.E.2d 719 (1991) (emphasis in 

original)).

As we set out in part II, supra, Starship claimed that rejection of its business 

license application deprived it of the use of its property between the date it filed its 

application for a business license and the date the writ of mandamus issued, in 

violation of the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due 

Process Clause (Count 1), and denied it equal protection of the law (Count 3). 

Starship also claimed that the County violated the First Amendment by delaying 

consideration of Starship’s application for a business license (Count 5) and 

denying the application for the purpose of preventing Starship from exercising 

speech (Count 7). Finally, Starship claimed that the Business License Ordinance is 

an unconstitutional prior restraint on its face because it fails to provide a time limit 

for the approval or rejection of a business license application (Count 4). These

claims arise from the same subject matter as Starship’s claim for mandamus relief 

in the Superior Court. That claim stemmed from Wagner’s denial of Starship’s 

application for a business license based on her determination that Starship could 

not qualify under the Business License Ordinance and Sexually Oriented Business

Ordinance, and the Board of Commissioners’ affirmance of the denial. The claims 

asserted in Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 arise from that same administrative ruling.

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 19 of 22 
20

In its mandamus petition, Starship alleged that the County’s ordinances 

“provide no guidelines on how the Board of Commissioners shall treat a 

recommendation from the Appeals Committee” and that the Board of 

Commissioners “exercised unbridled discretion”; that the County’s “business 

license procedures included numerous errors of law ... as applied to Starship”; that 

Starship met all requirements of the ordinances, including the 25 percent threshold; 

that Wagner “committed error by ruling that Starships’ [sic] application must be 

considered pursuant to amendments to the County’s ordinances enacted two 

months after a building permit issued”; and that Wagner erred in denying its 

application for a business license based on the “prospective possibility of unlawful 

conduct.” Record, vol. 2, no. 21-2.

In the case at hand, Starship asserted the same factual basis in support of its

claims. Starship maintained that the ordinances vest the County with unfettered 

discretion and impose no time limit for its approval or rejection of a license 

application; that the County applied its ordinances to Starship in violation of the 

First Amendment; that Starship notified the County that it would comply with the 

new Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance; that it would not operate its store as an 

adult bookstore; that the County “establish[ed] laws which were then retroactively 

applied to Starship to prevent its business operation;” and that the County engaged 

in a policy to deny the business license based on “the asserted ground that the 

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 20 of 22 
21

applicant will—at a time in the future—engage in conduct in violation” of the laws 

of the County. Record, vol. 1, no. 16, at 17–18. All of these claims arose from the 

same facts that Starship asserted in its petition for a writ of mandamus: that 

Starship met the requirements of the County ordinances and that the County erred 

when it denied Starship’s application. 

Starship could have presented these additional claims in its mandamus 

petition, but it did not. In Georgia, res judicata applies not only to claims that were 

actually litigated, but to claims that could have been litigated in a prior action.15

 

15 Starship contends that because Georgia law precluded a prayer for damages in a 

petition for a writ of mandamus, the District Court’s application of the doctrine of res judicata 

was inappropriate. Starship is wrong. True, the writ of mandamus is an “extraordinary remed[y] 

available in limited circumstances to compel action or inaction on the part of a public officer 

when there is no other adequate legal remedy.” Ford Motor Co. v. Lawrence, 279 Ga. 284, 285, 

612 S.E.2d 301 (2005) (citation omitted). Here, mandamus relief was appropriate because no 

other remedy, such as damages, could adequately compensate Starship for the wrongful denial of 

a business license and its consequent inability to open its bookstore. The extraordinary nature of 

mandamus does not necessarily bar incidental damages for past harm, however. Georgia courts 

have allowed plaintiffs to recover damages for past harm as well as relief to prevent future harm, 

such as an injunction or writ of mandamus. See, e.g., Georgia Dept. of Transp. v. Edwards, 267 

Ga. 733, 738, 482 S.E.2d 260, 265 (Ga. 1997) (affirming injunction requiring the Department of 

Transportation to remove a turn lane improperly constructed on plaintiff’s property as well as 

damages to compensate the plaintiff for the temporary taking of his property, stating, “Recovery 

of damages for the temporary taking as well as an injunction requiring return of the property did 

not, as DOT suggests, constitute a double recovery”). Georgia courts will not allow double 

recovery. See, e.g., Rabun Cnty. v. Mountain Creek Estates, L.L.C., 280 Ga. 855, 857–59, 632 

S.E.2d 140 (2006) (reversing award of damages for inverse condemnation because plaintiff had 

not suffered any diminished utility or functionality of property that would constitute a viable 

claim; the county thus had sovereign immunity, and mandamus was therefore the proper (and 

sole) remedy). In this case, damages to compensate Starship for the delay in opening its 

bookstore combined with a writ of mandamus to compel issuance of the business license would 

not constitute double recovery; it would merely provide relief for Starship’s past and future 

harm.

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 21 of 22 
22

See OCGA § 9-12-40. Accordingly, the District Court did not err in granting the 

County’s motion to dismiss Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7. 

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is

AFFIRMED

Case: 11-11287 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 22 of 22