Elizabeth Jenkins v. Grant Thornton LLP, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Elizabeth Jenkins. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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