Order — Athens v. Bank of America (Dkt. 7, D.N.H.)

Summary

An order filed September 14, 2021 as Document 7 in Natasha Athens, d/b/a Favorite Things v. Bank of America and Megan Scholz, Case No. 21-cv-748-SM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The order describes the suit as alleging that Bank of America and BOA Senior Vice President Megan Scholz committed fraud in administering COVID-19 pandemic-related loans, and notes that neither defendant has been served because preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) is not complete. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1), the court finds that Athens has not shown an attempt to notify Scholz or verified that immediate and irreparable harm would result. The motion to freeze Scholz's assets (Doc. No. 4) is denied by United States District Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.

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 7 Filed 09/14/21 Page 1 of 2



                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


Natasha Athens, d/b/a
Favorite Things

      v.                                        Case No. 21-cv-748-SM

Bank of America
Megan Scholz


                                 ORDER
     Plaintiff Natasha Athens has sued Bank of America (“BOA”)

and BOA Senior Vice President Megan Scholz, alleging they have

committed fraud in their administration of certain COVID-19

pandemic-related loans.     Before the court is plaintiff’s motion

for an injunction to freeze the assets of defendant Scholz.

(Doc. No. 4).     Neither defendant has been served in this case,

as preliminary review has yet to be completed.        See 28 U.S.C.

1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(2).

     Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, the court may issue a

temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the

adverse party or its attorney only if:


    (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified
    complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable
    injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant
    before the adverse party can be heard in opposition;
    and
         Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 7 Filed 09/14/21 Page 2 of 2



      (B) the movant's attorney [or the movant proceeding
      pro se] certifies in writing any efforts made to give
      notice and the reasons why it should not be required.


Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).       “‘[T]he requirements of Rule 65(b)(1)

are not mere technicalities but establish minimum due process.

Thus, [t]o obtain ex parte relief, a party must strictly comply

with those requirements.”        Woodard-CM, LLC v. Sunlord Leisure

Prods., Inc., Case No. 20-23104-CIV-WILLIAMS, 2020 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 173105, at *2, 2020 WL 5547917, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 29,

2020).    Ms. Athens has not demonstrated that she has attempted

to notify defendant Scholz, nor has she verified by affidavit or

otherwise that “immediate and irreparable” harm would accrue to

her if she were not heard prior to giving such notice.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 4) is denied.


      SO ORDERED.


                                          ____________________________
                                          Steven J. McAuliffe
                                          United States District Judge

September 14, 2021

cc:   Natasha Athens, pro se




                                      2


File and source

File

7-order-denying-4-motion-under-rule-65-to-freeze-the-assets-of.pdf

Size

108,035 bytes

SHA-256

11a1a9044867ae3f591961853d3338e025a8503c84c98d39897942ee42f789ca

Our copy

7-order-denying-4-motion-under-rule-65-to-freeze-the-assets-of.pdf

Original

archive.org