Case docket
United States ex rel. James R. Berkley v. Ocean State, LLC — D.R.I., No. 20-cv-538-JJM-PAS
United States ex rel. James R. Berkley v. Ocean State, LLC, et al. — 2 court filings in the archive from U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, filed September 26, 2025.
Case facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island |
|---|---|
| Filings | 2 public filings |
| Filed | 2025-09-26 |
| Document types | judgment (1), order (1) |
| Original PDFs | 1 of 2 |
Case summary
Relator James R. Berkley brought this action under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, No. 20-cv-538-JJM-PAS, against Ocean State, LLC, Blueprint Test Preparation, LLC and Fyzical Acquisition Holdings, LLC, which the court calls the PPP Recipients, and New Harbor Capital Fund LP, New Harbor Capital II LP and New Harbor Capital Management LP. The complaint alleged they violated the False Claims Act by applying for and receiving Paycheck Protection Program funds, and obtaining loan forgiveness, when they knew they did not qualify. On September 26, 2025 the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the False Claims Act public disclosure bar, denied the relator's motion for partial summary judgment, and entered judgment for the defendants.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Plaintiff: the United States of America, ex rel. James R. Berkley, relator. Defendants: Ocean State, LLC; New Harbor Capital Fund, LP; New Harbor Capital Fund II LP; New Harbor Capital Management LP; Blueprint Test Preparation, LLC; and Fyzical Acquisition Holdings, LLC |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, C.A. No. 20-538 JJM; the page stamps read 1:20-cv-00538-JJM-PAS. Memorandum and Order at Doc. 106 and Judgment at Doc. 107, both September 26, 2025 |
| Program | Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) |
| Claims | False Claims Act qui tam claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3730, alleging that the defendants applied for and received PPP funds, and obtained forgiveness of those loans, when they knew they did not qualify |
| Disposition or status | Judgment entered September 26, 2025 for all six defendants and against the relator, on the Memorandum and Order of the same date. The judgment form records a decision by the court, not a jury verdict |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What did the court decide?
That on the full summary judgment record the three aspects of the public disclosure inquiry were met: the essential facts giving rise to an inference of fraud were publicly disclosed, the disclosure was through sources qualified by the statute, and the relator's action is based on those public disclosures. There was no dispute that the relator was not an original source, so the court held it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and could go no further.
What had happened earlier in the case?
The defendants had moved to dismiss and the court denied that motion, finding the relator's allegations, taken as true, enough to confer jurisdiction and state a claim, including his allegations about his investigation and his professed expertise in private equity. After discovery the defendants raised the public disclosure bar again.
What does the judgment say?
That judgment enters for the six defendants and against the plaintiff United States of America, ex rel. James R. Berkley, pursuant to the Memorandum and Order entered September 26, 2025.
Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.
Filings
2 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.