In re Gilead Sciences, Inc. Appeal from 71st District Court of Harrison County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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: Date Decided: 1 May 4, 2023 May 5, 2023 As a result of our ruling, we also deny Gilead’s accompanying motion for a temporary stay. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
