Lyndsay A. Gorton
Overview
Lyndsay Gorton is a Government Contracts partner in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. Her practice focuses on government contracts litigation and counseling, including government investigations, fraud matters under the False Claims Act, bid protests, and federal and state regulatory compliance. In addition to her primary government contracts practice, Lyndsay has federal court litigation experience representing a broad variety of clients in commercial litigation matters, and has led and managed teams at every stage of litigation, including discovery, dispositive motion practice, trial, and settlement. She also uses her litigation experience to assist her clients with internal investigations, risk management, and compliance.
Lyndsay also maintains an active pro bono practice and is currently representing a client before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in an appeal of a district court decision under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction.
Career & Education
- American University Washington College of Law, J.D., 2010
- College of William & Mary, B.A. & B.S., anthropology and psychology, 2007
- District of Columbia
- Virginia
- U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
- U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia
Lyndsay's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.20.25
Representative Matters
- Represents government contractors relating to alleged violations of the civil False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Act in District Courts around the United States, including in the District of Columbia, the Eastern District of Virginia, and others.
- Represents government contractor in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia appealing a successful defense of protest challenging award of contract by Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
- Serves as second chair trial counsel for a Fortune 20 company in the largest pharmaceutical multi-district litigation in the country.
- Represents government contractors in responses to non-party subpoenas issued pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) in various types of federal court litigation.
- Represents government contractors on investigations provided to various inspector general offices and federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
- Represented associations serving Alaska Native regional and village corporations as intervenor-defendants in federal district court litigation under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging the Secretary of Treasury’s determination of which “Tribal governments” are eligible for relief funds under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and. Economic Security Act (CARES Act).
- Completed secondment to a technology-focused government contractor to assist with internal investigations based on ethics hotline complaints.
- Represented small business government contractors on bid protests at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), including a successful entitlement for costs.
- Represented a small business subcontractor in a prime contractor-subcontractor dispute through the course of state court litigation.
- Represented government contractors and other companies before state and federal courts to defend employment-related claims brought under federal and state law.
- Participated in two trial teams based on federal preemption and constitutional law questions related to local agency decisions to award on state power grids.
Lyndsay's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.20.25
Insights
Pharmaceutical Products Liability Litigation Impossibility Pre-emption Defence
|06.07.22
International Law Office
FEATURE COMMENT: The Top FCA Developments Of 2021
|02.16.22
The Government Contractor, Vol. 64, No. 7
- |
09.16.20
The Government Contractor, Vol. 62, No. 34
Waynesboro Election Officials Vow To Appeal If Court Forces Them To Certify Election
|10.28.24
The News Virginian
White House Push To Reform Mining Law Draws Skepticism From Opponents, Advocates
|02.25.22
IHS Markit
Lyndsay's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.20.25
