Complaint (2021-11-19) — Athens v. Bank of America, N.A. and Megan Scholz, No. 1:21-cv-00748-SM

Source document: Complaint (2021-11-19); document type: Objection (Docket No. 100).

Full text

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
NATASHA ATHENS d/b/a Favorite Things,
Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA and MEGAN SCHOLZ,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00748-SM
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST/MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS
NOW COME Defendants Bank of America, N.A.1 (“BofA”) and Megan Scholz (together,
“Defendants”), by and through their attorneys, Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer PC, and
respectfully object to “Ex Party Plaintiff’s Request to Strike Objection and Response of Non-Party
Thomas Pappas and All of His Other Pleadings - Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Non-Party Pleading
Exposing her Taxes” (the “Motion”) (Doc. #94) as follows:
1.
Motions to strike pleadings are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.
2.
The Motion fails to set forth any basis under Rule 12 to strike any of Defendants
pleadings.  Rather, the motion merely continues Plaintiff’s ad hominem attacks.
3.
In its Order dated November 19, 2021 (Doc. #48), the Court, in denying Plaintiff’s
Motion for Hearings (Doc. #23), noted Plaintiff’s misapprehension of the rules regarding
electronic filing and explained Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.  Specifically, the Court noted that under Rule 5
and this Court’s Local Rules, a party’s filing of a documents through the Court’s ECF System
constitutes filing for all purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and constitutes proof of
1 Incorrectly named in Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Bank of America.”
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM   Document 100   Filed 02/09/22   Page 1 of 2

2
5185835.1
service in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d).  The Court further noted that Plaintiff had filed a
“Pro Se Motion to Participate in Electronic Filing” (Doc. #3) and in her Motion “the Plaintiff
acknowledged that she ‘unders[tood] that hard copies will no longer be issued by the Court or
opposing counsel.’”
4.
In the Motion (and numerous other pleadings) the Plaintiff continues her
misapprehension and misreading of Rule 5 and this Court’s Local Rules.  Such a misreading
provides no basis to strike any of Defendants’ pleadings.
5.
The Court should simply deny the Motion.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court:
A.
Deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Doc. #94); and
B.
Grant such other relief as the Court deems just.
Dated: February 9, 2022
By:
Respectfully submitted,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and MEGAN SCHOLZ
By their attorneys,
PRIMMER PIPER EGGLESTON & CRAMER PC
 /s/ Thomas J. Pappas
Thomas J. Pappas, Esq., N.H. Bar No. 4111
P.O. Box 3600
Manchester, NH 03105-3600
(603) 626-3300
tpappas@primmer.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST/MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS has this day been forwarded via
the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System to:
Natasha Athens   Natasha4NHGov@protonmail.com
Dated: February 9, 2022
By:  /s/ Thomas J. Pappas
Thomas J. Pappas, Esq., (N.H. Bar No. 4111)
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM   Document 100   Filed 02/09/22   Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

athens_bank_of_america__docket-60366607__doc-100__id-192660943__Objection_to_Motion.pdf

Size

59,070 bytes

SHA-256

54ed9e8e3cc3759252c630ceb1a3914e334b5fe1cfdaf655358916138f4a7b7e

Our copy

athens_bank_of_america__docket-60366607__doc-100__id-192660943__Objection_to_Motion.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com