Motion to Strike — Natasha Athens d/b/a Favorite Things v. Bank of America and Megan Scholz (Document 75)
Summary
A Rule 12(f) motion by defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Megan Scholz to strike numerous pleadings filed by the plaintiff in Natasha Athens d/b/a Favorite Things v. Bank of America, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00748-SM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, filed January 4, 2022 as Document 75. It asks the court to strike Doc. 63, Doc. 64, Doc. 68, Doc. 69, Doc. 70, Doc. 72, Doc. 73 and Doc. 74 as immaterial and scandalous, relying on Nault's Auto. Sales, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co. The motion states that the filings attack the character of the defendants and their counsel, accuse them of crimes and threaten their families, and notes that the court already struck the plaintiff's Doc. 71. The 10-page motion is signed by Thomas J. Pappas.
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
Cite this document
“Motion to Strike — Natasha Athens d/b/a Favorite Things v. Bank of America and Megan Scholz (Document 75).”
Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/motion-to-strike-73-exhibit-70-notice-no-1-21-cv-00748-dkt-75-9f1b1bb517/
, SHA-256 6a57d2dba28c53512ad402c4dc83f932ef6fb44ccb0ef8e189c021105ffc181d.Full text
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 75 Filed 01/04/22 Page 1 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
)
NATASHA ATHENS d/b/a Favorite Things, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00748-SM
)
BANK OF AMERICA and MEGAN SCHOLZ, )
)
Defendants. )
)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE NUMEROUS
PLEADINGS FILED BY PLAINTIFF
Defendants Bank of America, N.A.1 (“BofA”) and Megan Scholz (together, “Defendants”),
by and through their attorneys, Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer PC, respectfully submit this
Rule 12(f) motion to strike the following documents filed by Plaintiff: “Plaintiff’s ex-party notice
of appeal” (“Doc. 63”); Plaintiff’s Notice of No Brief Due (“Doc. 64”); Plaintiff’s Brief on Appeal
(“Doc. 68”); Plaintiff’s Affidavit (“Doc. 69”); Plaintiff’s Notice of Last Chance to Settle (“Doc.
70”); “Exhibit Grinch Megan – You Look This Bad” (“Doc. 72”); “Exhibit Pappas As Scrooge –
Reprehensible” (“Doc. 73”) and Plaintiff’s Response to Judge’s Order (“Doc. 74”). In support
thereof, Defendants assert the following:
ARGUMENT
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) governs motions to strike pleadings from the record.
Rule 12(f) provides, in relevant part:
The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court may act: (1) on its own;
or (2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a
response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.
1
Incorrectly named in Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Bank of America.”
1
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 75 Filed 01/04/22 Page 2 of 10
This Court has previously granted a Rule 12(f) motion to strike where, as here, the
pleadings contain personal assaults and unsubstantiated accusations. See Nault’s Auto. Sales, Inc.
v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., Acura Auto Div., 148 F.R.D. 25, 35 (D.N.H. 1993) (abrogated on
other grounds). “Scandalous material is that which casts an adverse light on the character of an
individual or party.” Id. at 30. For purposes of Rule 12(f), scandalous pleadings “are those which
reflect cruelly upon [an individual’s] moral character, use repulsive language or detract from the
dignity of the court.” Id. To constitute scandalous material, “such degrading charges must be
irrelevant or, if relevant, must be gone into in unnecessary detail.” Id.
In Nault’s Auto Sales, the plaintiff filed pleadings in which it claimed that opposing counsel
deliberately and intentionally withheld requested information about alleged bribes within the
defendant company. Id. The Court struck these allegations from the record and explained:
These serious allegations are based not on hard evidence of wrongdoing, but upon
suspicion supported only by a rather strained theory of information flow . . . The
charges leveled against counsel for [Defendant] are not only unsubstantiated, but
there was at the time the charges were leveled, and there is now, no reasonable
basis upon which such charges could responsibly be made.
Id. The Court similarly struck from the pleadings baseless allegations that Defendant and its
counsel filed false affidavits, committed perjury, and were generally guilty of “fraudulent and
criminal conduct” where no facts existed to support those assertions. Id. at 32-34. In so holding
the Court emphasized that, though counsel for the defendant had failed to comply with certain
discovery requirements, this did not justify “the unsubstantiated and extreme attacks on the
personal integrity, ethics and character of defense counsel.” The Court struck several pleadings in
their entirety, noting that “[t]he tone, the language used, and the accusations themselves are
unwarranted by the facts.” Id. at 35.
2
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 75 Filed 01/04/22 Page 3 of 10
Here, several pleadings filed by Plaintiff and the allegations contained therein are far more
egregious than the pleadings at issue in Nault’s Auto Sales. Plaintiff has not only attacked the
integrity, moral character, and intelligence of Defendants and their counsel, but she has also
accused them of committing crimes and threatened their families. These pleadings contain
degrading allegations and insults that are entirely unsubstantiated. These offensive pleadings, as
detailed more thoroughly below, are irrelevant to the instant action and serve no purpose other
than to harass and abuse Defendants and their counsel and they detract from the dignity of the
Court.
Importantly, this Court has already exercised its authority to strike irrelevant and
inappropriate pleadings when it struck Plaintiff’s “Notice of New Lawsuit” (hereinafter “Doc.
71”). Consistent with its order striking Doc. 71 and pursuant to Rule 12(f), the Court should also
strike Doc. 63, Doc. 64, Doc. 68, Doc. 69, Doc. 70, Doc. 72, and Doc. 73.
I. Doc. 63.
Doc. 63 constitutes Plaintiff’s purported appeal of the Court’s order on Defendants’
pending motion to dismiss.2 The vast majority of Plaintiff’s motion is a hypothetical narrative of
the actions Plaintiff would take against Defendants and their counsel if BofA were to theoretically
file suit against Plaintiff. For example, Plaintiff states:
Once they opt to sue the Plaintiff to obtain the entire amount, the Plaintiff gets
discovery. 100% discovery. She gets to depose Defendant Megan Scholz, and Brian
Moynihan … How many complaints did BOA file against small business for being
“loaned too much”? She gets to find out their ties to Thomas Pappas, how many
cases he has represented for them, and his ties to the bank in his own person life …
Should Bank of America come after the Plaintiff for the loan when it becomes due,
she can sue them for destroying her store name, and her credit over this forgivable
loan. And sue them once again.
2
Plaintiff’s purported appeal is premature since the Court has not yet ruled on Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss.
3
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 75 Filed 01/04/22 Page 4 of 10
Doc. 63 at 2-3. These purported threats of exposure and litigation in a hypothetical lawsuit are in
no way related to the instant action or motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff’s pleading also contains false accusations and profane personal insults. The
pleading includes the following statements about Defendants and their counsel:
[Plaintiff] gets to testify on the record about the bank crimes and her research. She
gets to testify on how many places she reported this crime. And the subsequent
crimes.
…
Thomas Pappas has defaulted . . . Thomas has a low IQ, and cannot even read.
…
All parties are too insane to even grasp that this dismissal only showed their giant
bed with all of them in it… the 3 party joint bed of targeting a business because
they legally obtained federal funds, through a crooked bank and a a [sic] drunk VP
that were planning the biggest heist in banking history.
Doc. 63 at 2-5. These accusations and insults, among others contained in the pleading, are
inappropriate, degrading, and reflect cruelly upon the character of Defendants and their counsel.
Moreover, the pleading includes an entirely unrelated discussion of accusations against
CNN. These statements are in no way relevant to the instant case or pleading. Accordingly, the
Court should strike the pleading in its entirety or, in the alternative, strike all immaterial and
scandalous portions of the document.
II. Doc. 64.
Doc. 64 is captioned a “Notice of No Brief Due.” Similarly to Doc. 63, however, Doc. 64
is devoid of any legal argument and is instead comprised of assertions that are irrelevant and
abusive toward Defendants and their counsel. Plaintiff has referred to undersigned counsel as
“stupid,” a “scumbag attorney,” “mentally ill,” “deeply vested into his own crime spree,” and
4
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 75 Filed 01/04/22 Page 5 of 10
having a “low IQ.” The pleading also contains statements directed generally toward Defendants,
their counsel, and this Court. For example, the document provides:
They all get coal in their stockings, and should be ashamed to attach the word
American after their names. Bank of America is bank of Crimes, and Bullies of
America, and they have to live with their stain on America.
…
The majority of people have ability to stop accidents from happening, leave the
shore when they see giant waves, shut off a hot burner, etc. They don’t want to
create or cause anyone any harm. The players in this case all do. They want to hurt
people, injure them, … It’s at this point we all have to look at them and their wallets
and their sociopathy.
See Doc. 64 at 3, 5. These assertions are cruel, inappropriate, and damaging to undersigned
counsel and Defendants’ reputations. Moreover, the statements are in no way relevant to the
instant case or the pleading and detract from the dignity of the Court. These are exactly the kind
of statements to which Rule 12(f) applies.
Additionally, Exhibit 1 attached to Doc. 64 contains irrelevant and scandalous information,
including a picture of Defendant Megan Scholz that Plaintiff obtained from Ms. Scholz’ personal
social media page, pictures depicting coal being placed in stockings, and a link to Plaintiff’s blog.
This exhibit serves no purpose other than to harass and harm Defendants and undersigned counsel;
it is not relevant to the instant case. Accordingly, the Court should strike the pleading and the
exhibit attached thereto in its entirety or, in the alternative, strike all immaterial and scandalous
portions of the document.
III. Doc. 68.
Doc. 68 is captioned “Brief on Appeal.” Again, this pleading is riddled with abusive,
irrelevant, scandalous statements about Defendants and their counsel. For example, the pleading
contains the following statements:
5
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 75 Filed 01/04/22 Page 6 of 10
Megan is a hysterical unglued vicious fraud, that drinks and loves attention and is
a “big donor” to charities … She has committed so many crimes, it’s hard to fathom,
and whatever MONEY or “favors” are being paid to Thomas Pappas, who is
engaging in crimes with her, virtual bed or not, most people get paid to do a job,
don’t then become criminals.
…
[Thomas Pappas’] insanity, stupidity and begging from his sippy cup for the court
to indulge him turns stomaches [sic] of normal people that wonder what favors are
exchanged from sippy cup to sippy cup.
Doc. 68 at 5, 7-8.
The pleading also contains multiple exhibits that solely contain statements intended to
harass undersigned counsel and Defendants. Doc. 68-1 is an attack against undersigned counsel,
filled with insults and false accusations. Doc. 68-1 accuses undersigned counsel of committing
crimes, engaging in bank fraud, lying in Court, stealing tax records, and being part of a crime
family. See Doc. 68-1. Doc. 68-1 also refers to undersigned counsel as “old, lazy and whiny,” “a
wimp,” “incompetent,” and as having “mental issues.” Id. These statements are baseless,
irrelevant, and damaging to undersigned counsel’s professional and personal reputation.
Doc. 68-2 solely contains false accusations and insults directed toward Ms. Scholz. Doc.
68-2 contains photographs that depict Ms. Scholz as a “criminal,” “evil,” “jealous,” and a “toxic
mom,” among other things. Doc. 68-2 also makes references to Ms. Scholz not deserving a
presidential pardon. These accusations are unfounded, irrelevant, and intended to abuse and harass
Ms. Scholz. There is no clearer application of Rule 12(f) than to Doc. 68-2, which is wholly
immaterial to the instant case and solely contains false, scandalous statements about another party.
Finally, Doc. 68-3 contains additional false and damaging statements about undersigned
counsel and Defendants. Doc. 68-3 is also filled with statements about Plaintiff’s character and
irrelevant beliefs. For example, Doc. 68-3 contains references to Plaintiff’s beliefs about Oprah
6
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 75 Filed 01/04/22 Page 7 of 10
Winfrey, Keene City Council, and Cheshire Hospital. These accusations are unrelated and
irrelevant to the instant case. As with Plaintiff’s other pleadings, Doc. 68 and its exhibits (Doc.
68-1 through 68-3) are immaterial and scandalous. Accordingly, the Court should strike the
pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(f) or, in the alternative, strike the irrelevant and scandalous portion
of same.
IV. Doc. 69.
Doc. 69 is an affidavit filed by Plaintiff. The affidavit is not responsive to any existing
order or pleading, nor is it a proper motion pursuant to any Federal Rule. The Court should strike
the document on that basis alone.
Additionally, the document contains irrelevant and inappropriate insults. Plaintiff has
accused undersigned counsel as being part of “a ‘Greek Mafia’ cabal” and a “sad little crime
family.” Doc. 69 at 2. As with Plaintiff’s other statements about undersigned counsel, these
accusations are baseless and are intended to harass him and damage his reputation and are
irrelevant to the issues in the instant case.
In Doc. 69, Plaintiff has also included threats against Ms. Scholz’s and undersigned
counsel’s families. For example, Plaintiff states:
The spouses need to know, and I can depose all of them, and find out if they are
party to crimes and coverup [sic], or if they are horried [sic] at the abuses done here
… I am going to mail claims to your residences in your spouses names, and also set
up to depose them to find out if they are “partners” with you, or not even aware.
Doc. 69 at 4. These threats are abusive and irrelevant. Accordingly, the Court should strike Doc.
69 in its entirety or, in the alternative, strike the scandalous and irrelevant statements contained
therein.
7
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 75 Filed 01/04/22 Page 8 of 10
V. Doc. 70.
Doc. 70 constitutes another affidavit that is not responsive to any pleading or order, nor is
it a proper motion permitted under the Federal Rules. The Court should strike the document on
this basis alone.
Moreover, similar to the other pleadings referenced herein, Doc. 70 contains false, baseless
statements accusing Defendants and undersigned counsel of committing crimes. The pleading also
contains additional threats against Defendants’ and undersigned counsel’s families. Plaintiff has
stated: “This will end with you and your families exposed to a level that can never be contained
back into a bottle. The plaintiff has urged at this 11th hour for one person to have enough wits about
them to cease this sad crime spree and get out of the spotlight.” Doc. 70 at 3.
Again, this pleading serves no relevant purpose and is immaterial to the instant case.
Rather, the pleading is solely intend to harass and abuse Defendants and undersigned counsel.
This is an inappropriate use of the judicial system and the type of pleading that should be struck
from the record pursuant to Rule 12(f). Accordingly, the Court should strike Doc. 70 in its entirety
or, in the alternative, strike the portions that are irrelevant and scandalous.
VI. Doc. 72 and Doc. 73.
Doc. 72 is a proposed separate lawsuit against Ms. Scholz and her husband and Doc. 73 is
a proposed lawsuit against undersigned counsel and his wife. The Court has already determined
that a proposed lawsuit of a similar nature is “not relevant to any issue presented by this litigation,
and is, at a minimum, inappropriate” when it struck Doc. 71. See Order Striking Doc. 71. Similar
to Doc. 71, Doc. 72 and Doc. 73 are irrelevant to the instant action and it is inappropriate to threaten
suit unless a party settles on another party’s terms. Accordingly, the Court should strike these
documents from the record.
8
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 75 Filed 01/04/22 Page 9 of 10
VII. Doc. 74.
Doc. 74 is a pleading in response to the Court’s Order dated January 3, 2022, striking
Plaintiff’s pleading captioned “Exhibit Sample New Lawsuit” (Doc. 71). Doc. 74 is not a proper
motion or pleading pursuant to the Federal Rules and should be stricken on that basis alone.
Even if Doc. 74 were generously considered a motion for relief from an order under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60, Doc. 74 fails to raise any substantiated grounds for relief as required by Rule 60.
Rather, Doc. 74 merely contains irrelevant, baseless and scandalous statements that detract from
the dignity of the Court and which attack the integrity, ethics, and character of the Judge as well
as Defendants and their counsel. Accordingly, the Court should strike Doc. 74 in its entirety or,
in the alternative, strike all immaterial and scandalous portions of the document.
Given the nature of the relief sought in this motion, Defendants did not seek plaintiff’s
assent.
No memorandum of law is filed herewith because the granting of this motion is within the
sound discretion of the court.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should strike Doc. 63, Doc. 64, Doc. 68, Doc.
69, Doc. 70, Doc. 72, Doc. 73, and Doc. 74 pursuant to Rule 12(f).
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court:
A. Strike Doc. 63, Doc. 64, Doc. 68, Doc. 69, Doc. 70, Doc. 72, Doc. 73, and Doc. 74;
and
B. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just.
9
Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 75 Filed 01/04/22 Page 10 of 10
Respectfully submitted,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and MEGAN SCHOLZ
By their attorneys,
PRIMMER PIPER EGGLESTON & CRAMER PC
Dated: January 4, 2022 By: /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’ MOTION TO STRIKE
NUMEROUS PLEADINGS FILED BY PLAINTIFF has this day been forwarded via the Court’s
Electronic Case Filing System to:
Natasha Athens Natasha4NHGov@protonmail.com
Dated: January 4, 2022 By: /s/ Thomas J. Pappas
Thomas J. Pappas, Esq., (N.H. Bar No. 4111)
10
5129497.1
File and source
- File
- 75-motion-to-strike-73-exhibit-70-notice-other-69-affidavit-in.pdf
- Size
- 85,777 bytes
- SHA-256
- 6a57d2dba28c53512ad402c4dc83f932ef6fb44ccb0ef8e189c021105ffc181d
- Original
- archive.org