Ruling in Federal Suit between Ackerman and NRA

NRA sued its former PR agency and parasite in Virginia state court (twice maybe) and then sued it in federal court in Texas. Ackerman filed a countersuit against NRA in the case, NRA moved to dismiss it, and here is the court’s ruling, dismissing some of it and letting the rest go forward. It’s a long ruling, but there are parts that outline how the board was lied to, back in 2019 and since. In the opinion, AMc = Ackerman McQueen.

P. 11, footnote.  “AMc points to a deposition of Col. North in which he stated that he had “not talked to anybody from [AMc] about” the damaging information and “was not delivering [the damaging information] on behalf of either [himself or AMc.].” SAC ¶¶ 122. Dan Boren, a member of the NRA Board of Directors, and Carolyn Meadows, current President of the NRA, testified that they did not overhear Col. North threaten LaPierre during the call or demand LaPierre’s resignation. Id.¶¶ 124-25.”

Pp. 19-20. “AMc contends that LaPierre’s April 25, 2019 letter to the NRA’s Board constitutes a defamatory statement. Response at 6. AMc asks the court to view “the letter as a whole,” rather than “focus on any one statement in the letter or any one use of the word ‘extortion.’” Id. at 7. To that end, AMc notes several statements contained in the letter. For example, AMc points to LaPierre’s statement that, “while AMc was ‘capable of doing high quality work . . . [AMc] is capable of something much different.’” Id. at 6. Additionally, LaPerre proceeded to “describe the alleged ‘extortion’ call from Col. North to [LaPierre’s Executive Assistant].” Id. AMc also asserts that “LaPierre made additional accusations in further support of his extortion narrative, such as AMc was ‘trying to oust [him]’ . . . .” Id. (alterations in original). 

The NRA appears to put forward two arguments in its motion to dismiss. First, the NRA argues that the letter to the Board “does not show any accusation of extortion” and “simply states that Col. Oliver North spoke with [LaPierre’s executive assistant], and said that he would send a damaging letter to the NRA Board unless LaPierre resigned.” Brief in Support at 12. The NRA describes the phrase “styled, in the parlance of extortionists” as “the only use of any variation of the word ‘extortion’ in the Board Letter, and it is not an actual accusation of extortion by either Col. North or [AMc].” Id. Second, the Association adopts LaPierre’s argument that none of the statements in the April 25 letter are false. “

Pp. 28-30. “The court concludes that the April 25 letter is reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning through defamation-by-gist.The test under this theory is whether the publication conveys a defamatory meaning “that no reasonable reader would fail to notice.” Id. at 630. The April 25 letter quite clearly carries the gist that AMc, through Col. North, committed extortion or blackmail in an effort to force LaPierre to resign his position.  . . .  The NRA is incorrect on two grounds. First, the April 25 letter falsely accuses Col. North of issuing a “threat” to LaPierre on behalf of AMc. AMc points to testimony by three individuals with direct knowledge of the contents of the call (Col. North, LaPierre’s Executive Assistant Millie Hallow, and now-current President of the NRA Carolyn Meadows), each of whom denied either that Col. North was acting on behalf of AMc or that Col. North issued a threat to LaPierre. See SAC at ¶¶ 122-24. Second, as described at some length above, even if certain individual statements made in the April 25 letter are true, they may be juxtaposed in such a way so as to create a defamatory gist. Accordingly, the court concludes, for purposes of this opinion, that an individual statement in (or the gist of) the April 25 letter was false.”

P. 47. “LaPierre’s statements also satisfy the basic elements of fraud. Specifically, if the SAC is assumed to be true, AMc relied on LaPierre’s representation that it would not have to deal with BAC. See id. ¶ 76. Prior to the October 11 meeting, “AMc decided that if LaPierre, Spray, Brewer, and other NRA officials were not willing to change their recent practices, AMc would resign the NRA’s business entirely.” Id. ¶ 73. Furthermore, LaPierre’s statements were directed at AMc. Finally, LaPierre’s representation appears to be effectively – if not technically – false because AMc “agreed to the third audit with [FRA], believing the audit company to be independent from Brewer and Powell, based on LaPierre’s promise.” Response at 14. As it turned out, FRA employed Susan Dillon, who had joined FRA at the end of 2018 after working as the Director of Consulting at BAC for over 17 years. See id.”

P. 54. “Thus, the central concern animating the economic loss rule – prohibiting tort damages for purely economic harms when a remedy under contract is available – does not apply. Accordingly, the fraud claim is not barred by the economic loss rule and AMc’s conspiracy claim survives the NRA’s motion to dismiss.”

While searching for this document, we found another one in this case, where the court orders, “In accordance with the foregoing, the defendants’ motion to disqualify William A. Brewer III and BAC is DENIED; however, it is ORDERED that Brewer shall not appear on behalf of the NRA at any hearing or trial in this case.”