Court Opinion

ID: 9393429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 08:08:53.692029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.215294
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                  No. 06-23-00034-CV

            IN RE GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

             Original Mandamus Proceeding

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
       Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Gilead Sciences, Inc., petitions this Court to issue a mandamus directing the trial court to

vacate its order ending the stay of this case. We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

I.     Factual Background

       “On March 16, 2017, the United States and twenty-nine states, including Texas, through

their qui tam relator, Toby Travis, sued Gilead [Sciences, Inc.,] . . . in the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania for[, among other things,] violating the . . . TMFPA [Texas Medicaid Fraud

Prevention Act].” In re Gilead Scis., Inc., No. 06-21-00030-CV, 2021 WL 4466006, at *2 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana Sept. 30, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). After the Pennsylvania Action

was filed, Health Choice Advocates, LLC (HCA), filed a qui tam action on behalf of the State of

Texas under the TMFPA against Gilead Sciences, Inc. (HCA’s suit), in the 71st Judicial District

Court of Harrison County. HCA’s suit was stayed. In September 2022, the relator in the

Pennsylvania Action filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint that would

remove all TMFPA claims. On February 16, 2023, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted

the motion “and remove[d] the State of Texas as a party plaintiff.”

       A few days later, HCA filed a motion asking the trial court to lift the stay it had

previously entered. The trial court lifted that stay and, as a result, Gilead filed this petition for a

writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court’s action constituted an abuse of discretion.

II.    Standard of Review

       “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy . . . .” In re Good Shepherd Hosp., Inc., 572

S.W.3d 315, 319 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, orig. proceeding). To be entitled to mandamus

                                                  2
relief, the relator must show “(1) a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by

law and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law.” Id. (citing Cantu v. Longoria,

878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)).

III.        Conclusion

            The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for a writ of mandamus, the

response, the reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the mandamus petition should

be denied.

            We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.1

                                                        Charles van Cleef
                                                        Justice

Date Submitted:              May 4, 2023
Date Decided:                May 5, 2023

1
    As a result of our ruling, we also deny Gilead’s accompanying motion for a temporary stay.
                                                           3