ACCEPTED 15-25-00088-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/9/2025 3:24 PM No. ___________ CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK
In the Fifteenth Court of Appeals 15th COURT FILED IN OF APPEALS Austin, Texas AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk In re ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, Relator.
Original Proceeding from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 22-0426, Honorable Brad Morin, Presiding
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
SCOTT DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO LLP MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Stephen E. McConnico William R. Peterson State Bar No. 13450300 State Bar No. 24065901 smcconicco@scottdoug.com william.peterson@morganlewis.com Kennon L. Wooten Heidi Rasmussen State Bar No. 24046624 State Bar No. 24090345 kwooten@scottdoug.com heidi.rasmussen@morganlewis.com 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 Austin, Texas 78701 Houston, Texas 77002 (512) 495-6300 (713) 890-5000 (512) 495-6399 (Fax) (713) 890-5001 (Fax)
GILLAM & SMITH LLP Melissa R. Smith State Bar No. 24001351 melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 303 S. Washington Ave. Marshall, Texas 75670 (903) 934-8450 (903) 934-9257 (Fax)
Counsel for AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The following constitutes a list of all parties to the cause below and the names and addresses of all counsel:
Relator: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Relator’s Counsel: William R. Peterson (At trial and on appeal) Heidi Rasmussen MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 890-5000 william.peterson@morganlewis.com heidi.rasmussen@morganlewis.com
Stephen E. McConnico Kennon L. Wooten SCOTT DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO LLP 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 495-6300 smcconicco@scottdoug.com kwooten@scottdoug.com
Melissa R. Smith GILLAM & SMITH LLP 303 S. Washington Ave. Marshall, Texas 75670 (903) 934-8450 melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
(At trial) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Scott McBride John C. Dodds, admitted pro hac vice Ryan P. McCarthy, admitted pro hac vice Erica A. Jaffe, admitted pro hac vice Respondent: The Honorable Brad Morin Harrison County Courthouse 200 West Houston St., Suite 219 Marshall, Texas 75670
Real Parties in Interest: SCEF, LLC and Lynne Levin-Guzman
Counsel for Real Parties: Samuel F. Baxter (At trial and on appeal) Jennifer L. Truelove MCKOOL SMITH P.C. 104 East Houston Street, Suite 300 Marshall, Texas 75670 (903) 923-9099 sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
W. Mark Lanier Alex Brown Zeke DeRose III Jonathan Wilkerson THE LANIER FIRM 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy. N., Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 (800) 723-3216 WML@LanierLawFirm.com Alex.Brown@LanierLawFirm.com Zeke.DeRose@LanierLawFirm.com Jonathan.Wilkerson@LanierLawFirm.com
Real Party in Interest: State of Texas
Counsel for Real Party: Jonathan D. Bonilla (At trial and on appeal) Lynne Kurtz-Citrin Cynthia Lu Office of the Attorney General Civil Medicaid Fraud Division P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 475-4196 Jonathan.Bonilla@oag.texas.gov
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Identities of Parties and Counsel.................................................................................i
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... iii
Index of Authorities ................................................................................................... v
Statement of the Case................................................................................................vi
Statement of Jurisdiction......................................................................................... vii
Statement Regarding Oral Argument .................................................................... viii
Issue Presented ........................................................................................................... 1
Mandamus Record and Appendix.............................................................................. 2
Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................... 3
Standard...................................................................................................................... 8
Argument.................................................................................................................... 9
I. The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Denying the Motion to Transfer Venue. ............................................................................................... 9
A. SCEF Bears the Burden of Establishing Venue in Harrison County. ................................................................................................ 10
B. SCEF Failed to Satisfy Its Burden. ..................................................... 10
1. The allegation that “sales and marketing reps targeted providers” in Harrison County fails. ......................................... 11
2. SCEF’s website theory fails under In re Sanofi-Aventis. ......... 11
3. SCEF’s brochure theory fails for the same reason its website theory fails under In re Sanofi-Aventis. ....................... 13
II. Mandamus is Warranted Because AstraZeneca Seeks Enforcement of a Mandatory Venue Provision. .................................................................. 15
iii III. This Court Need Not Remand for Venue Discovery. ................................... 15
Conclusion & Prayer for Relief ............................................................................... 16
Rule 52.3(j) Certification ......................................................................................... 17
Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 17
Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 18
iv INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES
In re Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, --- S.W.3d ---, 2025 WL 920111 (Tex. App.—15th Dist. Mar. 27, 2025) (orig. proceeding) .........................passim
State of Texas ex rel. APBQR, LLC v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, No. 23-0698 (71st Tex. Dist., Harrison Cnty.) ..................................................... 3
State of Texas ex rel. Health Choice Advisory, LLC v. Shire PLC, No. 20-0415 (71st Tex. Dist., Harrison Cnty.) ..................................................... 3
State of Texas ex rel. Health Choice Advocates, LLC v. Gilead Scis. Inc., No. 20-0416 (71st Tex. Dist., Harrison Cnty.) ..................................................... 3
State of Texas ex rel. Health Selection Grp., LLC v. Novartis AG, No. D-1-GN-20-02596 (53d Tex. Dist., Travis Cnty.) ......................................... 3
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) ................................................................................ 8
STATUTES
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.0642 ................................................................ vii
Tex. Govt. Code § 22.220 ....................................................................................... vii
Tex. Govt. Code § 22.221 ....................................................................................... vii
Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.052(d) ....................................................................passim
RULES
Tex. R. App. P. 39.1............................................................................................... viii
Tex. R. App. P. 52.3................................................................................................... 2
Tex. R. App. P. 52.7................................................................................................... 2
Tex. R. Civ. P. 87 ..............................................................................................passim
v STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Case: Qui tam action by a private relator under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act.1
Respondent: Hon. Brad Morin, 71st Judicial District Court of Harrison County
Action from Which Respondent denied Relator’s Motion to Transfer Venue Relator Seeks pursuant to Texas Human Resources Code § 36.052(d) in Relief: an order signed on September 1, 2023. Appx, Tab A.
1 The TMFPA is now known as the Texas Health Care Program Fraud Prevention Act. All citations in this petition are to the TMFPA, which governs Real Parties’ claims.
vi STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction over this original proceeding under Sections
22.220 and 22.221 of the Texas Government Code.
Section 22.220(d)(1) gives this Court “exclusive intermediate appellate
jurisdiction” over matters arising out of civil “matters brought by or against the
state.” This Court recently held that “a qui tam action qualifies as a suit by the State”
and that this Court has “jurisdiction over [an] original proceeding” seeking to
enforce the TMFPA’s mandatory venue provision. In re Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, -
-- S.W.3d ---, 2025 WL 920111 (Tex. App.—15th Dist. Mar. 27, 2025) (orig.
proceeding).
This petition is timely because it is being filed more than 90 days before the
trial in the qui tam action is set to begin. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.0642
(“A party may apply for a writ of mandamus with an appellate court to enforce the
mandatory venue provisions of this chapter” “before the later of” either “(1) the 90th
day before the trial starts; or (2) the 10th day after the date the party receives notice
of the trial setting.”). Trial is currently scheduled for December 2025. MR241.
vii STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Because the dispositive issue in this original proceeding has been
authoritatively decided by this Court in In re Sanofi-Aventis, 2025 WL 920111, oral
argument is unnecessary. Tex. R. App. P. 39.1(b).
viii ISSUE PRESENTED Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to transfer
venue.
1 MANDAMUS RECORD AND APPENDIX Pursuant to Rule 52.7(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Relator
has prepared a Mandamus Record consisting of sworn copies of documents filed in
the underlying proceeding that are material to its claim for relief as well as a properly
authenticated transcript from the August 31, 2023 hearing addressing Relator’s
motion to transfer venue. The Mandamus Record will be cited as, “MR__.”
Pursuant to Rule 52.3(k), Relator has attached the district court’s order as an
appendix to this petition.
2 STATEMENT OF FACTS This mandamus petition concerns a straightforward mandatory venue
provision. Lawsuits under the TMFPA must be brought in either Travis County or
in any county “in which any part of the unlawful act occurred.” Tex. Hum. Res.
Code § 36.052(d). For this reason, only a limited understanding of the underlying
facts and allegations is necessary to address this petition.
Real Party SCEF, LLC is a New Jersey-based entity formed for the sole
purpose of prosecuting qui tam litigation. MR083. After federal courts rejected
SCEF’s theory that pharmaceutical companies providing nurse education and
reimbursement support services constituted unlawful kickbacks, SCEF and its
affiliates turned to the state courts, including in Texas. See, e.g., State of Texas ex
rel. APBQR, LLC v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, No. 23-0698 (71st Tex. Dist.,
Harrison Cnty.); State of Texas ex rel. Health Choice Advocates, LLC v. Gilead Scis.
Inc., No. 20-0416 (71st Tex. Dist., Harrison Cnty.); State of Texas ex rel. Health
Choice Advisory, LLC v. Shire PLC, No. 20-0415 (71st Tex. Dist., Harrison Cnty.);
State of Texas ex rel. Health Selection Grp., LLC v. Novartis AG, No. D-1-GN-20-
02596 (53d Tex. Dist., Travis Cnty.). Real Party Lynne Levin-Guzman is a resident
of Los Angeles who was employed by nonparty InVentiv Health almost ten years
ago as a cardiovascular nurse educator. MR083.
3 Real Parties (collectively, “SCEF”) initiated this qui tam action on behalf of
the State of Texas against AstraZeneca in Harrison County in 2022. MR003. They
allege that AstraZeneca violated the TMFPA by providing (1) educational
information via nurses, (2) nurses who support prescribers by providing training on
disease care and answering patient questions, and (3) reimbursement support.
MR080, MR091-125. The State of Texas declined to intervene. MR059.
The original petition included only a brief and conclusory assertion regarding
venue:
24. Upon information and belief, venue is proper in Harrison County pursuant to the TMFPA. Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 36.052(d). A lawsuit filed under the TMFPA “shall be brought in Travis County or in a county in which any part of the unlawful act occurred.” Id. Upon information and belief, venue is proper in Harrison County because Astra’s unlawful acts occurred, in part, in Harrison County.
MR010.
After AstraZeneca moved to transfer venue, MR067, SCEF filed an amended
petition, which contains an additional paragraph with venue allegations:
25. More specifically, using the unlawful marketing schemes detailed herein, Astra has targeted and continues to target providers based in Harrison County. This year alone, Astra sales and marketing reps targeted providers affiliated with the Diagnostic Clinic of Marshall, located at 300 N. Alamo Boulevard, Marshall, TX 75670, and B&D Healthcare Solutions, located at 310 N. Alamo Boulevard, Marshall, TX 75670, among other facilities.
MR084.
4 After SCEF filed an amended petition, AstraZeneca filed a renewed motion
to transfer venue “specifically den[ying] that any of the alleged unlawful acts
occurred in Harrison County” and seeking to transfer the case to Travis County.
MR139-40. AstraZeneca explained that SCEF “simply do[es] not allege that the
‘sales and marketing reps’ committed any of the three allegedly unlawful acts while
at either of the facilities.” MR141. After SCEF served discovery requests,
MR168-83, AstraZeneca filed a motion for a protective order. MR147.
SCEF filed an opposition and, in the alternative, a request to conduct venue-
based discovery on August 1, 2023. MR158. SCEF argued that venue was proper
in Harrison County because “through its sales and marketing reps,” AstraZeneca
“offered” nursing and support services to prescribers in Harrison County in violation
of the TMFPA. MR160-61. It further asserted that AstraZeneca’s public websites,
which were accessible in the county, constituted “offers” to provide the services to
“all U.S.-based Prescribers, including those in Harrison County.” MR161 (emphasis
in original). A hearing on AstraZeneca’s motion was set for August 31. MR218.
Four business days before the hearing—on August 25—SCEF filed a
“supplemental submission” in further support of its opposition to the motion to
transfer venue. MR192. SCEF never sought nor obtained leave of court for this
filing, which was untimely under Rule 87 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
5 Tex. R. Civ. P. 87(1) (“Except on leave of court, any response or opposing affidavits
shall be filed at least 30 days prior to the hearing of the motion to transfer.”).
The supplemental submission included a three-paragraph declaration from
Kristin Burgess (the “Burgess Declaration”). The Burgess Declaration asserts:
2. On August 16, 2023, I visited a clinic located in Marshall, Texas. The clinic had brochures for Fasenra, a product manufactured by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (“Astra”). A true and correct copy of one such brochure is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
3. On its very first page, the Fasenra brochure has a QR code and an instruction to “[s]can the QR code to sign up for updates about your prescription approval status and savings information.” Once scanned, the QR code links to Astra’s myaccess360.com portal for Fasenra. A true and correct copy of the webpage of this portal is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
MR198.2
During the hearing, MR218-40, AstraZeneca explained that SCEF failed to
satisfy its burden of providing prima facie proof of venue facts. MR221-24. The
Burgess Declaration was not properly before the district court because it was not
“filed at least 30 days prior to the hearing of the motion to transfer.” MR223. And
Ms. Burgess did not identify the clinic from which she allegedly obtained the
brochure, making it impossible to determine whether the clinic actually provided
services to Medicaid patients. See id. (discussing “concierge clinic[s]”).
2 Ms. Burgess also provided an affidavit in support of real parties’ opposition to the defendants’ motion to transfer venue in the underlying proceedings in In re Sanofi- Aventis. See In re Sanofi-Aventis, 2025 WL 920111, at *4-5.
6 In response, SCEF relied heavily on its website theory of venue:
In our answering papers, we identify their websites. All these websites talk about the services being offered to everybody, every prescriber in the [United S]tates, including Texas, including Harrison County. I didn’t hear Mr. Gillam respond to that. These are standing offers they have to everybody in the United States, including Harrison County.
MR224.
The day after the hearing, the district court signed an order denying
AstraZeneca’s motion to transfer venue. Appx, Tab A.
AstraZeneca now respectfully seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the district
court to transfer the case from Harrison County to Travis County, “the default
venue” under the TMFPA. In re Sanofi-Aventis, 2025 WL 920111, at *4.
7 STANDARD “Ordinarily, a party seeking mandamus relief must establish that (1) the trial
court abused its discretion and (2) there is no adequate remedy by appeal.” In re
Sanofi-Aventis, 2025 WL 920111, at *1 (citing In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148
S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)). “A party seeking to enforce a
mandatory venue provision by mandamus, however, is not required to prove it lacks
an adequate appellate remedy.” Id. (citing In re Lopez, 372 S.W.3d 174, 176 (Tex.
2012) (orig. proceeding)). “[W]hether a party is entitled to mandamus relief from a
trial court’s ruling on mandatory venue turns solely on whether the ruling constitutes
an abuse of discretion.” Id. (citing In re Applied Chem. Magnesias Corp., 206
S.W.3d 114, 117 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding)).
“A trial court has no ‘discretion’ in determining what the law is or applying
the law to the facts.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). “[A]
clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an
abuse of discretion, and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ.” Id.
8 ARGUMENT I. The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Denying the Motion to Transfer Venue.
SCEF’s arguments that AstraZeneca “offered” services in Harrison County
fail for the same reasons this Court concluded mandamus was warranted in In re
Sanofi-Aventis. SCEF has not satisfied its burden of presenting prima facie proof
that anyone received, or that AstraZeneca promised to provide, the challenged
services in the county. In re Sanofi-Aventis, 2025 WL 920111, at *5.
SCEF relied on three facts to support its allegation that venue was proper in
Harrison County: (1) the allegation that “sales and marketing reps targeted providers
affiliated” with two identified clinics; (2) AstraZeneca’s websites; and (3) the
brochure allegedly obtained from an unidentified clinic.
The first does not allege any unlawful acts and is not supported by any
affidavit. The second fails because In re Sanofi-Aventis establishes that a website is
not an “offer” under the TMFPA and because it is not supported by an affidavit. Id.
at *5-6. The third is supported only by the untimely Burgess Declaration, and the
brochure is not an “offer” under In re Sanofi-Aventis. Id.
Because SCEF failed to make prima facie proof of any facts demonstrating
that venue is proper in Harrison County, the trial court abused its discretion by
denying the motion to transfer venue.
9 A. SCEF Bears the Burden of Establishing Venue in Harrison County.
The TMFPA’s mandatory venue provision provides that actions “shall be
brought in Travis County or in a county in which any part of the unlawful act
occurred.” Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.052(d). “When a venue fact is specifically
denied, the party pleading the venue fact must make prima facie proof of that venue
fact.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 87(3)(a). “Prima facie proof is made when the venue facts are
properly pleaded and an affidavit, and any duly proved attachments to the affidavit,
are filed fully and specifically setting forth the facts supporting such pleading.” Id.
In its motion to transfer venue, AstraZeneca “specifically denie[d] that any of
the alleged unlawful acts occurred in Harrison County and that venue is proper in
Harrison County.” MR140. Because AstraZeneca “asserted that none of the
services it provides violate the” TMFPA and denied that “any of the purported
‘unlawful acts’ alleged in the Petition occurred in Harrison County,” the burden
shifted to SCEF “to produce prima facie proof of venue in admissible form,
demonstrating that at least a part of the unlawful acts it alleges” AstraZeneca
“committed occurred in Harrison County.” In re Sanofi-Aventis, 2025 WL 920111,
at *4.
B. SCEF Failed to Satisfy Its Burden.
SCEF failed to satisfy its burden to produce prima facie proof that any alleged
unlawful acts occurred in Harrison County.
10 1. The allegation that “sales and marketing reps targeted providers” in Harrison County fails.
In its amended petition, SCEF alleges that AstraZeneca’s “sales and
marketing reps targeted providers” in Harrison County. MR084. This allegation is
insufficient to establish venue in Harrison County for two reasons. First, SCEF does
not allege that these “sales and marketing reps” committed any of the allegedly
“unlawful act[s]” in Harrison County, Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.052(d), so even
crediting the allegation, venue would not lie in Harrison County. See In re Sanofi-
Aventis, 2025 WL 920111, at *5 (holding that a declaration stating that sales
representatives met with medical providers in the county was insufficient to establish
venue without “details of what allegedly occurred at those meetings or how those
meetings relate to the allegations in [Real Party’s] pleadings”).
Second, SCEF failed to support this allegation with any affidavit, and as a
result, failed to “make prima facie proof of that venue fact.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 87(3)(a).
2. SCEF’s website theory fails under In re Sanofi-Aventis.
SCEF also argued that AstraZeneca’s “public websites” constitute “offers” in
Harrison County because the websites were accessible to “all U.S.-based
Prescribers, including those in Harrison County.” MR161 (emphasis in original).
The websites invite patients and prescribers to “[c]onnect with a nurse educator,” to
receive “care coaching,” to contact a “nurse helpline” with “questions regarding your
treatment,” and include links to download “Enrollment Forms” to receive
11 reimbursement support. MR161-63. SCEF claims these websites are “offers”
extended “to all Prescribers in all U.S. geographies,” and because they are
“accessible from and can be accepted in Harrison County,” venue is proper there.
MR163 (emphasis in original); see also MR224 (“These [websites] are standing
offers they have to everybody in the United States, including Harrison County.”).
This Court rejected an identical argument in In re Sanofi-Aventis, which held
that a website accessible in a county is not an “offer” that supports venue under the
TMFPA. See 2025 WL 920111, at *5. An “offer” “connote[s] an inducement,
directly or indirectly, of certain action by the person receiving the offer.” Id. Mere
ability to access to a website is not an “offer.” Id. Instead, a person must “expect to
receive something” as a result of accessing the website. Id. But as in In re Sanofi-
Aventis, SCEF “provided no evidence that anyone in Harrison County received or
that [AstraZeneca] promised to provide free nurse services or reimbursement-
support services in return for accessing” its website. Id. “At most,” the websites
were “general invitation[s] to apply for some of the challenged nurse services,
which” AstraZeneca “may then either accept or deny based on certain eligibility
criteria.” Id.
SCEF’s website theory also fails because this submission was not
accompanied by an affidavit as required by Rule 87. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 87(3)(a)
(“Prima facie proof is made when the venue facts are properly pleaded and an
12 affidavit, and any duly proved attachments to the affidavit, are filed fully and
specifically setting forth the facts supporting such pleading.”).
3. SCEF’s brochure theory fails for the same reason its website theory fails under In re Sanofi-Aventis.
In re Sanofi-Aventis also forecloses SCEF’s theory that a brochure from an
unidentified clinic constitutes an unlawful act giving rise to venue.
As an initial matter, the brochure argument (and the supporting affidavit) were
first raised in SCEF’s untimely supplemental response and, as a result, need not be
considered. SCEF submitted the Burgess Declaration on August 25, six days before
the August 31 hearing and long after the deadline in Rule 87(1). See Tex. R. Civ. P.
87(1) (“Except on leave of court, any response or opposing affidavits shall be filed
at least 30 days prior to the hearing of the motion to transfer.”). SCEF failed to
obtain leave of court for its untimely filing of the affidavit. As a result, SCEF failed
to “make prima facie proof of th[is] venue fact.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 87(3)(a).
In any event, SCEF’s brochure theory fails for the same reasons as its website
theory. According to Ms. Burgess, she visited an unspecified “clinic located in
Marshall, Texas” and obtained a brochure. MR198. The brochure includes a QR
code that directs patients to “sign up for updates about [their] prescription approval
status and savings information” and includes links to a portal for Fasenra, an
AstraZeneca product. Id.; see also MR211. The brochure informs patients that they
can receive training to ensure they properly administer their medication and directs
13 patients to a website with contact information for a “Nurse Team” providing
additional support and training. MR194-95, MR208.
The brochure is not an “offer” under this Court’s decision in In re Sanofi-
Aventis. It merely includes information and directs patients to a website to track the
status of their prescription and access a patient portal, which includes information
about some of the reimbursement programs. See MR193-95. A person does not
“expect to receive something” in exchange for reviewing the brochure, just as they
do not “expect to receive something” in exchange for visiting a website. In re
Sanofi-Aventis, 2025 WL 920111, at *5. Like AstraZeneca’s website itself, the
brochure constitutes “a general invitation to” visit AstraZeneca’s website and “apply
for some of the challenged nurse services,” which AstraZeneca may “either accept
or deny based on certain eligibility criteria.” Id.
SCEF “provided no evidence that anyone in Harrison County received or that
[AstraZeneca] promised to provide free nurse services or reimbursement-support
services in return for” reviewing the brochure. Id. The presence of the brochure in
a clinic in the county does not satisfy SCEF’s burden of producing prima facie proof
that any unlawful conduct occurred in Harrison County. Id. at *5-6.
Because SCEF failed to meet its burden to present prima facie proof that any
unlawful conduct occurred in Harrison County, the trial court abused its discretion
in denying AstraZeneca’s Motion to Transfer Venue, and mandamus is warranted.
14 II. Mandamus is Warranted Because AstraZeneca Seeks Enforcement of a Mandatory Venue Provision.
Because AstraZeneca seeks to enforce a mandatory venue provision under
Chapter 15 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, it need not prove it
lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Sanofi-Aventis, 2025 WL 920111, at *1.
The trial court’s ruling in this case constituted an abuse of discretion for the
same reasons as the trial court’s decision in In re Sanofi-Aventis. SCEF failed to
satisfy its burden to present prima facie proof that any of the allegedly unlawful
conduct occurred in Harrison County. Id. at *6. Mandamus relief is appropriate.
III. This Court Need Not Remand for Venue Discovery.
As in In re Sanofi-Aventis, this Court need not remand to permit venue
discovery. SCEF did not “obtai[n] a ruling from the trial court on its continuance
motion or discovery request.” In re Sanofi-Aventis, 2025 WL 920111, at *6. “By
proceeding on [the] motion to transfer in this manner and obtaining a ruling on it,
while failing to obtain rulings on its continuance motion and discovery request,
[SCEF] has no right to a remand for the trial court to consider these issues.” Id.
A “remand for further proceedings on venue should be quite rare” and “is
proper only when there is no probative evidence that venue was proper in either
county of suit or in the county to which transfer was sought.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). The TMFPA provides that venue is proper in Travis County—“the
county to which transfer was sought.” Id.; Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 36.052(d).
15 CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF For these reasons, Relator respectfully requests that this Court grant a writ of
mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its September 1, 2023 order denying
AstraZeneca’s Motion to Transfer Venue and directing the trial court to transfer the
case to Travis County. Relator requests all other relief, in law or in equity, to which
it may show itself to be justly entitled.
Dated: May 9, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
SCOTT DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO LLP MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Stephen E. McConnico State Bar No. 13450300 /s/ William R. Peterson smcconicco@scottdoug.com William R. Peterson Kennon L. Wooten State Bar No. 24065901 State Bar No. 24046624 william.peterson@morganlewis.com kwooten@scottdoug.com Heidi Rasmussen 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400 State Bar No. 24090345 Austin, Texas 78701 heidi.rasmussen@morganlewis.com (512) 495-6300 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 (512) 495-6399 (Fax) Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 890-5000 GILLAM & SMITH LLP (713) 890-5001 (Fax) Melissa R. Smith State Bar No. 24001351 melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 303 S. Washington Ave. Marshall, Texas 75670 (903) 934-8450 (903) 934-9257 (Fax)
Counsel for Relator
16 RULE 52.3(J) CERTIFICATION I certify, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 52.3(j), that I have reviewed the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandamus and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the Appendix or record.
Date: May 9, 2025
/s/ William R. Peterson William R. Peterson
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that the foregoing computer-generated document complies with the type-volume limitation of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i), because it has 3,106 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(2), which is less than 15,000-word limit applicable to this document.
I certify that the foregoing document complies with the typeface requirements in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(e), because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14 point Times New Roman font.
17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE As required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.3 and 9.5(b), (d), and (e) I certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on all parties and counsel by email. A copy of the Petition, Mandamus Record, and Appendix were also mailed to Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to 200 West Houston St., Suite 219, Marshall, Texas 75670.
18 No. ___________
In the Fifteenth Court of Appeals Austin, Texas
In re ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, Relator.
Original Proceeding from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 22-0426, Honorable Brad Morin, Presiding
APPENDIX INDEX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Tab No. Document Description A. Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue B. Declaration of Steven Strauss TAB A 22-0426 Filed 9/1/2023 9:30 AM Sherry Griffis District Clerk Harrison County, Texas Lori Hightower CAUSE NO. 22-0426 Deputy
THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT ex rel. 71ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT SCEF, LLC AND LYNNE LEVIN-GUZMAN HARRISON COUNTY, TEXAS Plaintiffs-Relators,
v.
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Before the Court is Defendant AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP’s Motion to Transfer
Venue. Upon considering the parties’ briefing and oral argument, the Court is of the opinion that
the Motion should be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 Sept SIGNED this ______ day of August, 2023
Hon. Brad Morin Judge Presiding Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 79136478 Filing Code Description: ORDER Filing Description: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Status as of 9/1/2023 9:32 AM CST
Associated Case Party: ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Kennon L.Wooten kwooten@scottdoug.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Angela Goldberg agoldberg@scottdoug.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Melissa Richards Smith 24001351 melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
William Peterson 24065901 William.Peterson@morganlewis.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Brian Scott McBride 24002554 scott.mcbride@morganlewis.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Heidi Rasmussen 24090345 heidi.rasmussen@morganlewis.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Jordan Kadjar jkadjar@scottdoug.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
John Dodds john.dodds@morganlewis.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Ryan McCarthy ryan.mccarthy@morganlewis.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Erica Jaffe erica.jaffe@morganlewis.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Kevin Rajan kevin.rajan@morganlewis.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Inez Freeman Inez@GillamSmithLaw.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Andrew "Tom"Gorham tom@gillamsmithlaw.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Ruth Adams radams@scottdoug.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Steve McConnico smcconnico@scottdoug.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Audrey Moore audrey.moore@lanierlawfirm.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Ryan Ellis ryan.ellis@lanierlawfirm.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Alex J. Brown alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 79136478 Filing Code Description: ORDER Filing Description: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Status as of 9/1/2023 9:32 AM CST
Courtney Walton courtney.walton@lanierlawfirm.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Zeke DeRose Zeke.Derose@lanierlawfirm.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: SCEF, LLC
Jonathan Wilkerson 24050162 jonathan.wilkerson@lanierlawfirm.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Jennifer Leigh Truelove 24012906 jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Christopher Lee Gadoury 24034448 cgadoury@amarolawfirm.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Kristin LeveilleRodriguez kleveille@mckoolsmith.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Eric B. Halper ehalper@mckoolsmith.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
W. Mark Lanier WML@LanierLawFirm.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Radu Lelutiu rlelutiu@mckoolsmith.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
joel leach jleach@mckoolsmith.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Sam Baxter sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Radu A. Lelutiu relutiu@mckoolsmith.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM ERROR
Associated Case Party: THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL.
Samuel F. Baxter 1938000 sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: The State of Texas Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 79136478 Filing Code Description: ORDER Filing Description: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Status as of 9/1/2023 9:32 AM CST
Associated Case Party: The State of Texas
Lynne Kurtz-Citrin 24081425 lynne.kurtz-citrin@oag.texas.gov 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Cynthia Lu 24067897 Cynthia.Lu@oag.texas.gov 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT
Jonathan Bonilla 24073939 Jonathan.Bonilla@oag.texas.gov 8/31/2023 4:56:28 PM SENT TAB B No. ___________
Original Proceeding from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 22-0426, Honorable Brad Morin, Presiding
DECLARATION OF STEVEN STRAUSS
1. My name is Steven Strauss. I am over the age of 18 and am in all ways capable
of making this declaration on personal knowledge.
2. I am counsel for AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP in connection with this
mandamus proceeding.
3. The appendix being submitted herewith contains a true and correct copy of
Respondent’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue, entered
on September 1, 2023.
4. The mandamus record being submitted herewith contains a true and correct
copy of:
a. Original Petition, filed on May 25, 2022; b. Texas’s Notice of Election to Decline Intervention and Agreed Motion
to Unseal, filed on December 21, 2022;
c. Agreed Order, filed on December 21, 2022;
d. Motion to Transfer Venue of Defendant AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
LP, filed on March 3, 2023;
e. First Amended Petition, filed on April 27, 2023;
f. Relators’ Response to Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue or, in the
Alternative, for a Continuance to Conduct Venue Discovery, filed on
May 1, 2023;
g. Motion to Transfer Venue of Defendant AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
LP, filed on May 22, 2023;
h. AstraZeneca’s Motion for Protective Order, filed on July 7, 2023;
i. Relators’ Combined Response to Defendant’s Motions to Transfer and
for a Protective Motion and, in the Alternative, Cross-Motion for a
Continuance Pending Completion of Venue Discovery, filed on August
1, 2023;
j. The State of Texas’s Statement of Interest in Response to Defendant’s
Motion to Transfer Venue, filed on August 16, 2023;
k. Supplemental Submission in Support of Relators’ Response to
Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue, filed on August 25, 2023; l. Hearing Transcript for Motion to Transfer Venue and Motion for
Protective Order, held on August 31, 2023; and
m. Amended Docket Control Order (Signed), filed on April 15, 2025.
5. The record being submitted herewith contains 246 pages, which are true and
correct copies of the pleadings, and order listed above.
My address is 2222 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. My date of birth is
August 15, 1992.
Signed this 8th day of May, 2025.
/s/ Steven Strauss Steven Strauss Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Ruth Adams on behalf of Kennon Wooten Bar No. 24046624 radams@scottdoug.com Envelope ID: 100666095 Filing Code Description: Original Proceeding Petition Filing Description: Petition for Writ of Mandamus Status as of 5/9/2025 3:39 PM CST
Steve McConnico smcconnico@scottdoug.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Kennon L.Wooten kwooten@scottdoug.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Jordan Kadjar jkadjar@scottdoug.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Angela Goldberg agoldberg@scottdoug.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Ruth Adams radams@scottdoug.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
William Peterson 24065901 William.Peterson@morganlewis.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Melissa Smith 24001351 melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Jennifer Truelove 24012906 jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Alex Brown 24026964 alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Zeke DeRose 24057421 zeke.derose@lanierlawfirm.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Jonathan Wilkerson 24050162 jonathan.wilkerson@lanierlawfirm.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Jonathan Bonilla 24073939 Jonathan.Bonilla@oag.texas.gov 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Lynne Kurtz-Citrin 24081425 lynne.kurtz-citrin@oag.texas.gov 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Cynthia Lu cynthia.lu@oag.texas.gov 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
W. Mark Lanier WML@LanierLawFirm.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Erica Jaffe erica.jaffe@morganlewis.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Brian McBride 24002554 scott.mcbride@morganlewis.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
John Dodds john.dodds@morganlewis.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Heidi Rasmussen 24090345 heidi.rasmussen@morganlewis.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT
Steven Strauss steven.strauss@morganlewis.com 5/9/2025 3:24:55 PM SENT