Natasha Athens v. Bank of America — Response to Plaintiff's Supplementation of the Record (Document 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

Full text

               Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 1 of 3




                               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 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AND MEGAN SCHOLZ’S RESPONSE TO
             PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE RECORD

          NOW COME defendants Bank of America, N.A.1 and Megan Scholz (“Defendants”), by

and through their attorneys, Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer PC, and respectfully respond to

“Plaintiff’s Response to Judge’s 2nd ‘Order’ on PPP Loan Pulled Out of Forgiveness” (Doc. #83)

as follows:

          1.      Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 9, 2021 (Doc. #33).

          2.      On January 21, 2022, the Court issued an order (the “Order”) (Doc. #78) in which

the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of

emotional distress and Plaintiff’s claim for fraud. The Court also afforded Plaintiff an opportunity

to supplement the record as it relates to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim regarding her claimed

entitlement to forgiveness of her PPP loan.

          3.      On January 25, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider the Order

and reminded the Plaintiff to supplement the record as described in the Order.




1
     Incorrectly named in Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Bank of America.”

                                                  1
            Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 2 of 3




       4.      “Plaintiff’s Response to Judge’s 2nd ‘Order’ on PPP Loan Pulled Out of

Forgiveness” appears to be Plaintiff’s attempt to supplement the record.

       5.      Plaintiff’s filing does not address the Court’s questions in the Order, and Plaintiff’s

filing does not provide any basis for the Court to deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

remaining count for breach of contract.

       6.      Having provided Plaintiff with ample opportunity to object to Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim for failure to comply with

the Court’s directives and for failure to state a claim.

       WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court:

       A.      Grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim; and

       B.      Grant such other relief as the Court deems just.

                                       Respectfully submitted,

                                       BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and MEGAN SCHOLZ

                                       By their attorneys,

                                       PRIMMER PIPER EGGLESTON & CRAMER PC

 Dated: January 31, 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




                                                   2
            Case 1:21-cv-00748-SM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 3 of 3




                             CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
AND MEGAN SCHOLZ’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE
RECORD has this day been forwarded via the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System to:

Natasha Athens
Natasha4NHGov@protonmail.com

Dated: January 34, 2022     By: /s/Thomas J. Pappas
                                Thomas J. Pappas, Esq., (N.H. Bar No. 4111)




                                            3
5164976.1


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