Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15695/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15695-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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.

USCA11 Case: 14-15695 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Page: 1 of 2
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.

USCA11 Case: 14-15695 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Page: 2 of 2