US District Court Judge William Campbell, Jr., issued an order today denying the NRA’s motions to dismiss the case brought against it by David Dell’Aquila and others. The case, Dell’Aquila et al v. National Rifle Association, is being heard in the Middle District of Tennessee was originally filed in August 2019. The case originally also included Wayne LaPierre and the NRA Foundation as defendants but they were dropped from the case in 2020. This case has had numerous delays due to the NRA’s abortive filing for bankruptcy, changes of attorneys, and numerous extensions of time. It was revived in August 2022 when Dell’Aquila engaged the Chicago firm of Loevy & Loevy and the Nashville office of Stites & Harbison.
As I reported earlier this month, William Brewer and Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, withdrew from the case as of March 5th and were replaced with the Nashville firm of Neal and Harwell PLC. However, it should be noted that all the motions filed on behalf of the NRA that were denied today came from the Brewer firm.
The NRA had moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint which had been filed in June 2024. They had also moved for oral argument and for a stay on discovery pending the outcome of their motion to dismiss. As noted above, Judge Campbell denied the motion to dismiss. He also denied the motion for oral argument on the motion to dismiss and said the motion to stay discovery was now moot.
The Third Amended Complaint accused the NRA of the following and the NRA had moved to dismiss all allegations.
In the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs bring claims against the NRA for fraud, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., and RICO conspiracy. The NRA seeks to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Judge Campbell noted that the standard for review of a motion to dismiss is that a court must take all factual allegations as true. He found that Dell’Aquila had sufficiently alleged the facts for fraud. The amended complaint had added the claims of breach of contract and tortious interference. He found there was sufficient factual allegations made earlier in the case to support the relation back of amendments. The NRA had contended they were not on notice to argue breach of contract or tortious interference because Dell’Aquila didn’t say earlier there was a contract with the NRA or the NRA Foundation.
Plaintiffs argue they have adequately alleged a claim for breach of contract. Plaintiffs point to allegations that the NRA mails a dues renewal notification to all members that includes a “Uniform Disclosure Statement” which states that “Contributions raised will be used to advance the mission of the NRA.”The NRA also solicits donations through its website, which contains the same statement. Plaintiffs contend this statement sets forth a contractual promise to use donated funds to advance the mission of the NRA, that Plaintiffs and other donors accepted this offer by sending donations, and that the NRA breached the promise by using the solicited funds for purposes not in furtherance of the NRA’s mission….
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a claim for breach of contract based on the NRA’s
solicitation of donations with the express promise that any donations would be used to further its
mission and its use of donated funds for purposes unrelated to that mission.
We have heard in the past that significant loans were made by the NRA Foundation to the NRA itself. We also heard in the New York case how significant personal expenditures were disguised through the use of credit cards issued by Ackerman McQueen. This has come back to bite the NRA and has allowed Dell’Aquila’s claim of tortious interference to stand.
Finally, there are the charges of RICO and RICO conspiracy.
As discussed above, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a RICO claim. With regard to
Defendant’s second argument, Plaintiffs point to allegations that the NRA “agree[d] to participate
in the conduct of the affairs of the NRA Foundation enterprise through a pattern of racketeering
activity,” specifically, that NRA had a “decades-long arrangement pursuant to which the NRA
solicited funds through the [NRA Foundation] under false pretenses, transferred those funds to the
NRA, and laundered them through Ackerman [McQueen] to support Mr. LaPierre’s extravagance.” For purposes of the motion to dismiss, these allegations are sufficient to plausibly allege that the NRA “objectively manifested an agreement to participate” in the RICO enterprise.
It should be pointed out that none of Dell’Aquila’s charges have been proven but there is enough there that the case goes on. More importantly, Dell’Aquila and his fellow plaintiffs will be allowed to engage in discovery which, to be honest, could prove very embarrassing to the NRA. While Wayne is gone as is Tyler Schropp and Doug Hamlin has started to clean house at the NRA, the NRA Foundation is still dominated by the old guard. They were put in place to do Wayne’s bidding including the sweetheart loans between the NRA and the NRA Foundation. These loans were sufficiently problematic that the Attorney General of the District of Columbia brought suit and the Foundation eventually entered into a consent decree.
Judge Campbell’s memorandum is embedded below:
by 
