In Re Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. the State of Texas

Order filed April 30, 2026.




                                      In The

                       Fifteenth Court of Appeals

                                NO. 15-25-00207-CV



   IN RE NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Relator


                          ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
                           WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                               71st District Court
                            Harrison County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 23-0276

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Relator Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Novartis”) filed a Petition for
Writ of Mandamus seeking to direct the trial court to dismiss a qui tam action
brought by real party in interest Health Selection Group, LLC (“HSG”) on
November 14, 2025. Novartis also filed a Motion for Temporary Stay the same day,
seeking to enjoin all proceedings in the trial court under Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure 52.10 pending resolution of the Petition. On December 5, 2025, the Court
denied the Motion and requested a response to the Petition, which was filed January
26, 2026.
      Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only if (1) the trial court
clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party requesting mandamus relief has no
adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–
36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). “The adequacy of an appellate remedy must be
determined by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments.”
In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (quoting
In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex.2008)).

      Novartis filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss under Rule
91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to dismiss HSG’s qui tam action,
which the trial court denied. After being denied mandamus relief in both the Sixth
Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court, Novartis filed the Petition in this
Court. Novartis’s Petition presents two issues: first, that HSG lacked standing to
bring its qui tam action under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act because
Novartis’s alleged violations did not injure HSG, and second, that the qui tam
provisions in the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act violate the separation of
powers in the Texas Constitution.

      These issues are weighty and are of significant importance, but consideration
of them at this time is premature because there is currently an adequate remedy by
appeal. Novartis argues that it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal because
consideration on appeal means that Novartis would have to “undergo cost-intensive
discovery” before the issue could be heard on appeal. But the Texas Supreme Court
has held that “[a]n appellate remedy is not inadequate merely because of the cost or
delay of going through trial and the appellate process.” In re Kappmeyer, 668 S.W.3d
651, 659 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding); In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316, 321
                                         2
(Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (“This Court has long held that the mere cost and
delay of pursuing an appeal will not, in themselves, render appeal an inadequate
alternative to mandamus review.”); Hooks v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 808 S.W.2d
56, 60 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (“The cost or delay of having to go through
trial and the appellate process does not make the remedy at law inadequate, and
hence mandamus will not lie.”); Iley v. Hughes, 311 S.W.2d 648, 652 (1958) (“[T]hat
there may be some delay in getting questions decided through the appellate process,
or that court costs may thereby be increased, will not justify intervention by appellate
courts through the extraordinary writ of mandamus.”).

      Critically, courts’ “reluctance to issue extraordinary writs to correct incidental
trial court rulings can be traced to a desire to prevent parties from attempting to use
the writ as a substitute for an authorized appeal.” Entergy, 142 S.W.3d at 320.
Mandamus relief is strong medicine that should be used sparingly—such as when a
clearly erroneous ruling places “tremendous strain on the requesting party to the
point that the party might ‘succumb[ ] to the burden of the litigation,’ if the order
‘radically skew[s] the procedural dynamics of the case,’ or if failure to grant relief
will result in waste of judicial and public resources.” In re Kappmeyer, 668 S.W.3d
at 659 (alterations in original) (quoting Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136–37). In
Kappmeyer, the Court prescribed this strong medicine to relieve two Texas
homeowners from the overwhelming burden of a clearly erroneous order that would
have forced the homeowners to bear tens of thousands of dollars in expense of
joining several hundred parties to their suit on penalty of dismissal. Id. The expense
threatened to stop the homeowners’ lawsuit against their HOA in its tracks. Id.



                                           3
      This case presents compelling constitutional questions, but it lacks the
urgency of Kappmeyer. Novartis is the sole defendant in this case brought by a single
plaintiff, and—as Novartis points out in its briefing—qui tam suits similar to this
one generally have not succeeded. While the mandamus petition presents well
briefed constitutional challenges to the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act, it is
not clear to us that the trial court radically skewed the dynamics of the case by
allowing the suit to proceed beyond the Rule 91a threshold to factual development.

      We hold that the costs of discovery and the litigation process that the parties
will endure are insufficient in this instance to demonstrate a lack of an adequate
remedy by appeal. Notwithstanding our determination today, we acknowledge the
importance of the issues raised and await this case on appeal—from summary
judgment or after trial, when the record will be developed—should the course of
proceedings lead either party to file an appeal here.

      Accordingly, we DENY Novartis’s petition for writ of mandamus.



                                               /s/ April Farris
                                               April Farris
                                               Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris.

Dissenting Opinion by Chief Justice Brister.




                                          4