Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify — Favorite Things a DBA Natasha Athens v. Bank of America et al (Document 5)

Summary

The plaintiff's motion to clarify, filed September 3, 2021 as Document 5 in Favorite Things, a DBA of Natasha Athens, v. Bank of America et al, Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM, in the United States District Court at Concord, NH. The motion states that the bank manually put through full forgiveness of the plaintiff's PPP loan on July 30, 2021 and that defendant Megan Scholz pulled that application. It lists questions it asks Scholz to answer under oath, including how the bank arrived at partial forgiveness, at 0 and at $1.00, and why an offer of $500 was made on a first application based on $5,000 a week payroll. It asks for an emergency hearing via Zoom and oral argument and refers to an October 14, 2021 forgiveness deadline. The motion is signed /s/ by Natasha Athens and dated September 1, 2021.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

     Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 5 Filed 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                Concord, NH
District of Merrimack NH                            Docket #


                              Favorite Things
                                  a DBA
                              Natasha Athens
                                     V.
                            Bank of America et al
                               Megan Scholz
                                Defendants


Demand for Jury Trial

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CLARIFY

ORAL ARGUEMENT REQUESTED



Now comes the Plaintiff and requests oral argument on the Defendant's
actions and her multiple versions of her altering, and ultimately canceling
the Plaintiffs loan forgiveness applicaition.

The Defendant only offered partial forgiveness on a loan from 2020, and
put through multiples that a new application was coming, only it never did.
The Plaintiff ultimately put her forgiveness application through alerting
them that she would sue for the balance, since she used the loan as it was
intended to keep her business going.

The bank manually put through the full amount on July 30, 2021, and
Megan pulled that application, and then wrote the the Plaintiff that she was

                                      1
        Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 5 Filed 09/03/21 Page 2 of 3




not due any forgiveness.

The Clarification must be ans\A/ered under oath by Megan
1.      How did the bank arrive at partial forgiveness?
2.   Did she send documentation to the Plaintiff (as required) detailing
how the forgiveness of partial amount of the loan was obtained.
3.    Defendant must explain under oath how many loans were sent this
notice, how many loans were only partially forgiven.
4.     Defendant must answer to how many hours was spent on the
Plaintiffs loan application, how many emails, and how many hours on the
forgiveness application.
5.      Defendant must explain how she arrived at 0 for forgiveness?
6.      Defendant must explain how she arrived at $1.00 for forgiveness?
7.     Defendant must explain why Bank of America is not opting in to the
direct forgiveness SBA portal so that borowwers can file directly to get
loans forgiven.
8.     Defendant must explain in detail Bank of America's "cut" of loan
applications forgiveness, and billing. Megan needs to explain how much
money was billed to CARES act or other federal funding over the Plaintiffs
loan application and forgiveness.
9.    Defendant must explain how in the first loan application, based on
$5,000 a week payroll, they offered $500 for 2.5 weeks of payrool.
10.  Defendant must explain how 2nd PPP loans were granted for the
same payroll as first loan amounts, and those loans are being forgiven in
full.

The Plaintiff reserves the right to add questions as this investigation goes
on further. The Defendant is timing out the forgiveness time of October 14,
2021 so that loans become due and forgivness portal is closed. This is
unconscionable and that puts the forgivness amount on to the Defendant
personally, for canceling loans and closing out the options under the CARES
act and SBA.


                                       2
     Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 5 Filed 09/03/21 Page 3 of 3




WHERFORE THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS AN EMERGENCY HEARING VIA ZOOM
AND ORAL ARGUMENT TO OBTAIN ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS.



/s/ Favorite Things

0\A,'ner, Natasha Athens

September 1, 2021




                                 3


File and source

File

5-motion-to-clarify-filed-by-natasha-athens-hearing-requested.pdf

Size

116,966 bytes

SHA-256

296444807dcbbbd1ce916ae963f3ec195ff4fc8feb7a04a13abed41dd8fdaf81

Our copy

5-motion-to-clarify-filed-by-natasha-athens-hearing-requested.pdf

Original

archive.org