59(e) motion; instead, the brief contains only one sentence addressing that issue. In that sentence, Ms. Goren simply contends that the "novel and unexpected nature of [the district court's holding] made it an abuse of discretion to deny leave to file the second amended complaint containing allegations explicitly contradicting such a seemingly inappropriate finding.” Appellant’s Br. at 22. Ms. Goren did not develop this perfunctory argument any further; nor did she bother to su 519KJFK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (stating that "[a] defendant does not 'direct' an enterprise's affairs under § 1962(c) merely by engaging in wrongful conduct that assists the enterprise”); Biofeedtrac, Inc. v. Kolinor Optical Enters. & Consultants, S.R.L., 832 F.Supp. 585, 590-91 (E.D.N.Y.1993) (<HOLDING>); Gilmore v. Berg, 820 F.Supp. 179, 183
holding that attorney who knowingly assisted enterprise in execution of fraudulent scheme by providing legal services and advice could not be held liable under  1962c because his role was at all times limited to the provision of legal services and did not extend to operation or management of enterprise holding that a company providing administrative purchasing and financial services to a hospital was not a hospital and thus could not be held directly liable under emtala holding that attorneyclient privilege could apply to communications of legal advice between nonlawyer members of management and human resources department if the communication was made in confidence for the primary purpose of obtaining legal advice holding that attorney who simply provided legal services to corporation did not participate in operation or management of enterprise regardless of whether he performed those services well or poorly properly or improperly holding that legal services attorney lacked standing to challenge state court judges alleged retaliation against clients represented by legal services for using legal services relying upon article iii and younger comity