Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Response — No. 1:21-cv-00748 (Dkt. 92)Search ⌕

Source documents · Archived capture

Response — No. 1:21-cv-00748 (Dkt. 92)

Summary

Defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Megan Scholz's Response to Plaintiff's Supplementation of the Record in Natasha Athens d/b/a Favorite Things v. Bank of America and Megan Scholz, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00748-SM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, filed January 31, 2022 as Document 92. It recounts that the court's order of January 21, 2022 (Doc. #78) granted dismissal of the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraud and let the plaintiff supplement the record on the breach of contract claim over PPP loan forgiveness. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's filing (Doc. #83) does not address the court's questions. They ask the court to grant their motion to dismiss the remaining breach of contract claim. The response is signed /s/Thomas J. Pappas of Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer PC.

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

Archived source document. Preserved source.

View original PDF · 24 KB

Original: storage.courtlistener.com

Record facts

File name92-response-re-83-response-not-to-motion-plaintiff-s-supplement.pdf
SHA-256a2466ef38f717eba437aa7feb26708ff7e3846d4a87f15ada2df52961e17a1c7
Size24,838 bytes
Source sitestorage.courtlistener.com

File and source

File
92-response-re-83-response-not-to-motion-plaintiff-s-supplement.pdf
Size
24,838 bytes
SHA-256
a2466ef38f717eba437aa7feb26708ff7e3846d4a87f15ada2df52961e17a1c7
Our copy
92-response-re-83-response-not-to-motion-plaintiff-s-supplement.pdf
Original
storage.courtlistener.com
Back to top