Order — Natasha Athens v. Bank of America, N.A. (1st Cir.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire · No. 1:21-cv-00748-SM · Doc. 101 · 2022-02-23 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 
 
 
Natasha Athens, 
d/b/a Favorite Things, 
 
Plaintiff 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case No. 21-cv-748-SM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Opinion No. 2022 DNH 020 
 
Bank of America, N.A. and 
Megan Scholz, 
 
Defendants 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
Natasha Athens, appearing pro se, filed this action against 
Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) and one of BOA’s vice presidents, 
alleging that defendants erroneously determined that a loan she 
obtained through the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) was not 
eligible for forgiveness.  By order dated January 21, 2022 
(document no. 78) (the “Show Cause Order”), the court granted, 
in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Athens’ 
common law claims for fraud and intentional infliction of 
emotional distress.  But, with respect to Athens’ third claim 
(that is, her assertion that defendants improperly rejected her 
application for loan forgiveness), the court deferred ruling on 
defendants’ motion.  
 
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM   Document 101   Filed 02/23/22   Page 1 of 4

 
2 
 
As explained more fully in the Show Cause Order, it appears 
that Athens submitted conflicting tax documents to BOA.  That 
is, in support of her loan application she supplied a document 
purporting to be a copy of her 2019 Form 1040, Schedule C.  
Subsequently, in support of her application for loan 
forgiveness, she provided a second (though markedly different) 
document also purporting to be her 2019 Form 1040, Schedule C.  
That discrepancy was material.  Indeed it called into question 
Athens’ eligibility for the original loan (and, not 
surprisingly, if Athens was not eligible for the loan in the 
first place, BOA was not authorized to approve that loan for 
forgiveness).  Athens never explained why two different copies 
of her 2019 Schedule C existed, which one was accurate, or why 
she had submitted both of them to BOA.  Nevertheless, in 
deference to Athens’ pro se status, the court (again) afforded 
her the opportunity to supplement the record.  Athens was given 
until February 21, 2022, to “directly, succinctly, and 
unequivocally” respond to three basic questions about those 
documents.   
 
 
Despite the court’s repeated efforts to allow Athens to 
flesh out the essential elements of her claim, she has 
steadfastly (if not defiantly) declined to do so, focusing 
instead on her misguided belief that she is entitled to a 
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM   Document 101   Filed 02/23/22   Page 2 of 4

 
3 
default judgment on all claims advanced in her complaint.  Most 
recently, she has refused to respond to the court’s Show Cause 
Order despite having been unambiguously warned that:  
 
should Athens fail to respond directly and 
unequivocally to the questions presented, the sole 
remaining claim in her complaint alleging entitlement 
to forgiveness of her PPP loan will be dismissed for 
failure to comply with the directives of the court and 
for failure to state a viable cause of action. 
 
 
Show Cause Order at 12 (emphasis supplied).   
 
 
The time for complying with the Show Cause Order has 
passed.  Athens has not responded – at least not in a meaningful 
or helpful way.  Instead, she remains unwavering in her refusal 
to comply with that order.  See, e.g., Objection and Motion to 
Reconsider (document no. 79) at 3 (“The plaintiff does not have 
to prove herself at all, her actual loan proves itself.”); 
Affidavit of Natasha Athens (document no. 83-1) at 2 (“The court 
is not privy to my taxes, nor can [it] require answers to them, 
or to what I filed . . . The court does not get to order 
anything other than the fact that I was legally given a PPP 
loan.”); Plaintiff’s Response (document no. 93) at 1 (“The judge 
sought illicit records, sought privileged records and none of 
that would have proved anything if the plaintiff complied [with 
the Show Cause Order].”).   
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM   Document 101   Filed 02/23/22   Page 3 of 4

 
4 
 
Given the state of the record, the court is left with no 
alternative but to grant the remainder of defendants’ motion to 
dismiss (document no. 33).  Athens’ claim relating to her 
asserted entitlement to loan forgiveness under the PPP is, 
therefore, dismissed.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to 
state a viable claim) and 41(b) (failure to comply with an order 
of the court).  Athens’ motion to strike (document no. 94) is 
denied as moot.   
 
 
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with 
this order and close the case.   
 
 
SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
____________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Steven J. McAuliffe 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States District Judge 
 
February 23, 2022 
 
cc: Natasha Athens, pro se 
 
Thomas J. Pappas, Esq. 
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM   Document 101   Filed 02/23/22   Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

athens_bank_of_america__docket-60366607__doc-101__id-193822051__Order_on_Motion_to_Strike_AND_Order_on_Motion_to_D.pdf

Size

80,590 bytes

SHA-256

26eb2c41b39ca35d4204960c087847ac427d3fa8866e14a9c584d34f435ffc85

Our copy

athens_bank_of_america__docket-60366607__doc-101__id-193822051__Order_on_Motion_to_Strike_AND_Order_on_Motion_to_D.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com