Bloomfield v. Engineered Structures, Inc. — Order Granting Motion for Settlement Approval (November 17, 2025)

Summary

An order of United States District Judge David J. Novak of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, in Karen Bloomfield v. Engineered Structures, Inc., Civil No. 1:22-cv-00789-DJN-IDD, filed November 17, 2025 as Document 150, granting the relator's Motion for Settlement Approval (ECF No. 141). The order states that the defendant will pay the Government $5,750,000 to resolve all claims, that the relator receives 29.5% of that recovery, or $1,696,250, and that the defendant pays $2,750,000 to relator's counsel for fees, costs and expenses. It finds the 29.5% share reasonable under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(2), noting the relator's contribution and that the Government appears not to have been aware of the conduct beforehand. The court finds the fee amounts reasonable, retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreements and closes the case.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 1:22-cv-00789-DJN-IDD          Document 150         Filed 11/17/25     Page 1 of 3 PageID#
                                          4094


                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                        FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

                                       Alexandria Division


KAREN BLOOMFIELD,
    Plaintiff-Relator,

       V.                                                            Civil No. I:22cv789 (DJN)

ENGINEERED STRUCTURES, INC.,
       Defendant.



                                            ORDER
                         (Granting Motion for Settlement Approval)

       This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff-Relator Karen Bloomfield’s (“Relator”)

Motion for Settlement Approval (ECF No. 141 (“Motion”)). The Court held a hearing in this

matter on November 17, 2025. As stated from the bench, and for the reasons set forth below, the

Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion (ECF No. 141) and approves the settlement.

       Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(2), which governs settlements in False Claims Act (“FCA”)

cases where the United States of America (the “Government”) elects not to intervene, courts are

required to make several findings concerning the fairness of the proposed settlement. The statute

requires that the relator receive an amount that “the court decides is reasonable.” 31 U.S.C.

§ 3730(d)(2). That amount must fall between 25 and 30 percent of the recovered amount. Id.

The relator shall also receive an amount for reasonable expenses “which the court finds to have

been necessarily incurred,” plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. All such expenses,

fees and costs shall be awarded against the defendant. Id. Courts look to several factors when

assessing the reasonableness of payment shares in such settlements, including (1) the

significance of the evidence provided by the relator to the Government, (2) the relator’s
Case 1:22-cv-00789-DJN-IDD           Document 150        Filed 11/17/25      Page 2 of 3 PageID#
                                           4095



contribution, and (3) whether the Government was previously aware of the conduct at issue.

U.S. ex rel. DRC. Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 2009 WL 3756343, at *2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 14, 2009),

affd sub nom. U.S. ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer,       . App’x561 (4lh Cir. 2011).

       Here, the parties' proposed settlement lays out the following terms. Defendant will pay

the Government $5,750,000 to resolve all claims. (ECF No. 141-3 at 3.) Relator receives 29.5%

of that recovery, i.e., $1,696,250. {Id.) Defendant further pays $2,750,000 to Relator’s counsel

for fees, costs and expenses pursuant to a side agreement. (ECF No. 141-4.) Relator’s counsel

represents that it incurred $444,524.69 in expenses, including for expert reports, depositions,

private investigators, witness interviews, as well as attorneys’ fees of $2,951,545. (ECF No.

141-5 at 4, 6.) Defendants’ payments amount to a total of $8.5 million, which falls just below

the PPP loan amount of about $8.6 million received by Defendant whose lawfulness Relator


contested in this action. (ECF No. 39    50.)

       Having reviewed Relator’s Motion and her supporting Memorandum of Law (ECF No.

141-2), the Court finds the 29.5% share of the settlement amount reasonable. While this

percentage lies at the upper end of the statutory range, the Court notes the considerable

contribution made by Relator and the extensive work performed by Relator and her counsel in

this matter. This case was filed more than three years ago, has proceeded through multiple

contentious rounds of briefing and was slated for trial in a matter of weeks. In addition, the

Government appears not to have been aware of Defendant’s misconduct prior to Relator’s claim.

and based on the facts presented, the Court finds it highly unlikely that the Government would

have discovered this behavior and brought an action against Defendant without Relator’s

assistance. Despite electing not to intervene, the Government still stands to recover over 4
Case 1:22-cv-00789-DJN-IDD            Document 150       Filed 11/17/25      Page 3 of 3 PageID#
                                            4096



million dollars for American taxpayers. As such, and for these reasons, the Court finds the

29.5% payout to Relator reasonable.

       As to attorney fees, expenses and costs, the Court also finds the agreed-upon amounts

reasonable. As a threshold matter, the Court notes that the negotiations in this case occurred at

arm’s length and involved several rounds of settlement discussions with an outside mediator, the

Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee. Collusion therefore does not present a concern here.       In addition,

the lawyers in this case engaged in several rounds of motions and were actively preparing for

trial when the settlement was reached. Given the length of this case and the extensive factual

predicate, as well as the various Dauberl motions and the work that went into their preparation,

the Court finds these costs reasonably incurred. The Court also finds the attorney fee amount

reasonable, given the extensive work performed by many attorneys over a long period of time.

       For all of these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff s Motion (ECF No. 141) and

DIRECTS Defendant to pay all sums in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement

and side agreement. At the parties’ request, the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of

the settlement agreement and the side agreement under Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance

Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994), and to resolve any dispute related to the agreements’ provisions.

       The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to close this case.

       This case is now CLOSED.


       Let the Clerk file a copy of this Order electronically and notify all counsel of record.

       It is so ORDERED.


                                                                 /s/
                                                      David J. Novak
                                                      United States District Judge
Alexandria, Virginia
Dated: November 17. 2025


File and source

File

150-order.pdf

Size

388,801 bytes

SHA-256

a87d5a13634a628d7e36f110c8f740c498fe0677579668557f3476c6846c93d1

Our copy

150-order.pdf

Original

archive.org