Case docket
Athens v. Bank of America, N.A. — U.S. District Court, D.N.H.
Natasha Athens, d/b/a Favorite Things v. Bank of America, N.A. and Megan Scholz — 3 court filings in the archive, mostly from U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, filed between February 23, 2022 and March 9, 2022. Among them: 2 judgments and 1 order.
Case facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire (2 filings); U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (1 filing) |
|---|---|
| Filings | 3 public filings |
| Filed | 2022-02-23 – 2022-03-09 |
| Document types | judgments (2), order (1) |
| Original PDFs | 1 of 3 |
Case summary
Natasha Athens, appearing pro se and doing business as Favorite Things, brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, No. 21-cv-748-SM, against Bank of America, N.A. and one of its vice presidents, Megan Scholz, alleging that the defendants erroneously determined that a loan she obtained through the Paycheck Protection Program was not eligible for forgiveness. By order of January 21, 2022 the court granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the common law claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deferred ruling on the forgiveness claim. On February 23, 2022 the court dismissed that remaining claim under Rules 12(b)(6) and 41(b), and judgment was entered the same day. The appeals were voluntarily dismissed on March 9, 2022.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Plaintiff Natasha Athens, d/b/a Favorite Things, appearing pro se; defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Megan Scholz |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, No. 1:21-cv-00748-SM, before District Judge Steven J. McAuliffe, Opinion No. 2022 DNH 020; on appeal, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Nos. 21-1964, 21-1965, 22-1004, 22-1083 and 22-1084 |
| Program | Paycheck Protection Program (PPP); the claim was for forgiveness of a PPP loan |
| Claims | Common law fraud; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and a third claim asserting that the defendants improperly rejected the application for loan forgiveness |
| Disposition or status | Dismissed. The fraud and emotional distress claims were dismissed January 21, 2022; the forgiveness claim was dismissed February 23, 2022 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 41(b); judgment entered February 23, 2022; the appeals were voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on March 9, 2022 |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What did the court decide?
That the record left it no alternative but to grant the remainder of the defendants' motion to dismiss. The order records that the plaintiff submitted two different documents each purporting to be her 2019 Form 1040, Schedule C, one with the loan application and one with the forgiveness application, and that she did not answer the court's show cause order asking which was accurate.
What does the judgment say?
Judgment was entered on February 23, 2022 in accordance with the orders of January 21, January 25 and February 23, 2022, with costs recoverable by the prevailing party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
How did the appeals end?
On the appellant's unopposed motion, the First Circuit ordered on March 9, 2022 that the five appeals be voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with mandates to issue forthwith.
Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.
Filings
3 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.