Elizabeth Jenkins v. Grant Thornton LLP, et al., No. 14-15695 (11th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-15695 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-15695 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-60957-RLR ELIZABETH JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GRANT THORNTON LLP, GRANT THORNTON LLP HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN, et al. Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (July 11, 2016) Before WILSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and WOOD, ∗ District Judge. ∗ Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood, United States District Chief Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation. Case: 14-15695 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant Elizabeth Jenkins appeals the district court’s partial grant of a motion to dismiss and entry of summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees Grant Thornton LLP (GT); Grant Thornton LLP Health and Welfare Benefits Plan (the Health Plan); and Grant Thornton LLP Employees’ Retirement Plan (the Pension Plan). Jenkins, proceeding pro se, filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., to recover long-term disability benefits she believes are due to her under the Health Plan, retirement benefits she believes are due to her under the Pension Plan, and document penalties for GT’s alleged failure to provide her with the plan documents she requested. Additionally, Jenkins seeks equitable relief on behalf of the Health Plan for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On appeal, Jenkins argues that the district court: (1) erred in dismissing several counts of her amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) abused its discretion in denying her motion to quash certain subpoenas and in issuing discovery sanctions against her; and (3) erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. After reviewing the record and having had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude the district court did not commit reversible error as to any issue. AFFIRMED. 2