Dell'Aquila v. LaPierre (NRA) Lawsuit Ordered to Continue

On August 6, 2019, David Dell’Aquila and others filed a civil class action lawsuit against Wayne LaPierre and the NRA Foundation, and the Brewer law firm, for fraud by soliciting donations for specific purposes and then spending them for other purposes specifically benefiting LaPierre and others. Over the next five years the complaint was amended twice. In its latest form, the defendants are the NRA, and Wayne LaPierre. The NRA Foundation’s advertising agency Ackerman McQueen is accused of fraud.  The plaintiffs class are those who donated to the NRA about 2015 to present. CEO LaPierre is accused being at the center of the fraudulent scheme. A  number of alleged improper personal expenditures are specified in the amended complaint. For example:

• LaPierre repeatedly approved private flights for his wife and extended family when he was not a passenger. In total, these lavish private flights cost over one million dollars and were neither authorized by the NRA board nor were in any way related to advancing the NRA’s mission.
• LaPierre and his family repeatedly took extravagant yachting trips in the Bahamas, and trips to Europe, financed by an NRA contractor, but LaPierre repeatedly failed to disclose these gifts. The details of these gifts were detailed in a recent expert report filed in the NYAG litigation—revealing that LaPierre paid approximately $100 million of the NRA’s money to the contractor, MMP Entities (an Ackerman affiliate), in exchange for lavish personal benefits. 
• The NRA reimbursed LaPierre more than $1.2 million dollars for personal expenses including Christmas gifts, airfare and lodging for his extended family, membership in a golf club, and travel to and from film shoots. In addition, several million dollars each year were allocated to LaPierre’s personal security, which included extravagant purchases such as an armored vehicle.

On March 26, 2025, Judge William L. Cambell, Jr., Chief Judge for the United States M.D. Tennessee, issued an opinion ruling for the plaintiffs. After five and a half years of legal maneuvering, the judge ruled the third amended complaint was legally viable; the case could move forward, and would not be dismissed by the  court.  It is likely that discovery in the case will be granted reasonably soon, as a motion to stay discovery pending the motion to dismiss was rendered moot by the opinion for the plaintiffs. From the opinion of the court:

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.” (Doc. No. 171 at 16; TAC ¶¶ 58-76, 147-153; 177). 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.

The paragraph above does not indicate the plaintiffs will prevail in this case. The order of the court merely indicates the plaintiffs have shown there is a legally viable case which should not be dismissed. There is a long legal battle ahead, with many possibilities, including a settlement of the case before trial.  At stake are many millions of dollars of alleged fraud on the part of the defendants.  Much information is already available from the proceedings in the NRA legal battles in New York.

This case is separate from the New York case, as a lawsuit attempting to recover damages done to those who donated to the NRA, who allege fraud and a RICO claim, as shown in the above paragraph from the opinion.

This correspondent is not an attorney. It appears there are several possibilities for appeal in this case. The defendants have incentive to keep the case moving, as long as the cost of the defense is less than the cost of a settlement. The defendants may win the case, or they may choose to settle the case. A jury trial has been asked for by the plaintiffs. It is uncertain how long the case will continue.

©2025 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch