In Re Powered by People and Robert Francis O'Rourke v. the State of Texas

ACCEPTED
15-25-00140-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
10/23/2025 1:51 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
October 23, 2025 Clerk

Mr. Christopher A. Prine via E-Filing
Clerk of the Court
Fifteenth Court of Appeals
P. O. Box 12852
Austin, TX 78711

Re: In re Powered by People and Robert Francis O’Rourke,
No. 15-25-00140-CV

To the Fifteenth Court of Appeals:

The State writes this letter to inform the Court of a recent development in the
trial court that is relevant to the petition for writ of mandamus pending before this
Court. The underlying case concerns Relators’ activities with respect to Texas
legislators who fled the State during a Special Session to deprive the Legislature of a
quorum. The State contends that Relators’ activities violated the Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and other laws.

Because the absent legislators returned to the State and the Special Session
has ended, Relators are no longer engaged in (and cannot engage in) the misconduct
the State sought to prevent. As a result, the State no longer has any need or basis to
seek prospective injunctive relief—either permanent or temporary—to prohibit
Relators’ misconduct with respect to (non-existent) legislators who have fled the
State.

As a result of these changed circumstances, on October 22, 2025, the State
filed a Second Amended Petition, attached as Exhibit A, confirming that the State
no longer seeks any temporary or permanent injunctive relief with respect to
Po st O f f ic e B o x 1 2 5 4 8 , Au s ti n , Tex as 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www.t ex as at to r n ey g e n er al .g o v
Mr. Christopher A. Prine
October 23, 2025
Page 2

Relators’ violations of the DTPA. The State continues to seek civil penalties as a
remedy for Relators’ past violations of the DTPA, and continues, if necessary, to
seek a temporary injunction to protect the trial court’s dominant jurisdiction against
the parallel El Paso proceeding.

The State respectfully suggests that these changed facts—which the State has
acknowledged in its amended petition—render moot the portions of the petition for
writ of mandamus regarding temporary restraining orders concerning Relators’
funding of state legislators and those portions regarding discovery rulings in advance
of a temporary injunction hearing.

This is not a case where “a party has taken steps to cause mootness.” In re
Contract Freighters, Inc., 646 S.W.3d 810, 813 (Tex. 2022). The challenge to these
orders has become moot because the legislators returned to the State and the Special
Session ended—not only have Relators ceased to engage in the misconduct that the
State sought to enjoin, but Relators could not now engage in that misconduct. Put
simply, there is no longer a “probable, imminent, and irreparable injury” from
Relators’ violations of the DTPA. State v. Loe, 692 S.W.3d 215, 226 (Tex. 2024)
(citing Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002)).

Nor could Relators rely on the “rare exception” to mootness when an issue is
capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review. Tex. A & M Univ.-Kingsville v. Yarbrough,
347 S.W.3d 289, 290 (Tex. 2011); see also Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex.
2001). There is no “reasonable expectation that the same action will occur again if
the issue is not considered.” 347 S.W.3d at 290. Moreover, the issue of the legality
of Relators’ conduct will not evade review because the State continues to press its
claims under the DTPA.

Because Relators have ceased the challenged misconduct (and cannot engage
in that misconduct now that the absent legislators have returned to the State and the
Special Session has ended), the State no longer has any need or basis to seek
prospective temporary or permanent injunctive relief to prevent any ongoing or
future violations of the DTPA.
Mr. Christopher A. Prine
October 23, 2025
Page 3

For these reasons, the State respectfully suggests that those portions of
Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus challenging temporary restraining orders to
prevent violations of the DTPA (and those portions challenging related discovery
rulings regarding a temporary injunction hearing on the issue) are moot.

Sincerely,

/s/ Abigail E. Smith
Abigail E. Smith
Assistant Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
Phone: (214) 290-8830
Abby.Smith@oag.texas.gov

cc: Mimi Marziani, via e-service
Sean McCaffity, via e-service
Rebecca (Beth) Stevens, via e-service
Joaquin Gonzalez, via e-service
Exhibit A
348-367652-25 FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
10/22/2025 11:39 AM
CAUSE NO: 348-367652-25 THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK

THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff, §
v. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
§
ROBERT FRANCIS O’ROURKE and §
POWERED BY PEOPLE §
§ 348th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Defendants. §

STATE OF TEXAS’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION
AND NOTICE OF LIEN

Robert Francis O’Rourke and his political influence operation, Powered by People,

recently traveled the state misleadingly raising political funds to pay for the personal expenses of

Texas Democrats who abandoned their offices and fled the state in the middle of a Special

Legislative Session. Texas law prohibits—as a matter of public confidence and trust—personal

fundraising for state officials.1 Nevertheless, Mr. O’Rourke and Powered by People intentionally

blurred the dichotomy between political and personal funds in a deceptive and confusing manner

to take advantage of donors. Mr. O’Rourke and Powered by People directed consumers to political

fundraising platforms, such as ActBlue, for the express political purpose of “fight[ing]”

Republicans and protecting Democratic seats from “corrupt republicans,” meanwhile the funds

were actually being used for lavish personal expenditures (i.e. travel on private jets, luxury hotel

accommodations, and fine dining that is disconnected from, and has no legitimate purpose relating

to, their legislative positions).

In support hereof, the State shows as follows:

1
Tex. Penal Code 36.08(f) (“A member of the legislature, the governor, the lieutenant governor, or a person
employed by a member of the legislature, the governor, the lieutenant governor, or an agency of the legislature
commits an offense if he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from any person.”).
I. STATEMENT OF RELIEF

1. Pursuant to Rule 47(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the State seeks

monetary relief over $1,000,000 and non-monetary relief.

II. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

2. Discovery is intended to be conducted under Level 3 of Rule 190 of the Texas Rules

of Civil Procedure.

III. THE PARTIES

3. Defendant, Robert Francis O’Rourke, 2 is an individual residing in El Paso County,

Texas. Defendant O’Rourke has generally appeared in this matter through his attorneys.

4. Defendant, Powered by People (“PXP”), is a non-profit corporation organized

under the laws of the State of Texas. Defendant PXP has generally appeared in this matter through

its attorneys.

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Venue is proper in Tarrant County, Texas, because a substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to the State’s claims occurred in Tarrant County, because Defendants have

done business in Tarrant County, and because transactions occurred in Tarrant County. Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 15.002(a)(1), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.47 (b).

V. BACKGROUND

6. The Texas Constitution provides that “[t]he Legislature shall meet every two years

at such time as may be provided by law and at other times when convened by the Governor.” Tex.

Const. art. III, § 5 (emphasis added).

2
Mr. O’Rourke is being sued in his individual capacity and his official capacity as a director of Defendant PXP.

2
7. On July 9, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a proclamation requiring the

Legislature to convene beginning on July 21, 2025, to address critical legislative needs of the State.

Att. A (Proclamation).

8. Governor Abbott directed the Legislature to consider and act upon a host of issues

including, inter alia, flood relief, property tax relief, protecting women’s privacy in sex-segregated

spaces, public school reforms, and a revised congressional redistricting plan “in light of

constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice.” Id.

9. Within hours of that proclamation a perennial candidate, Mr. O’Rourke, attacked

the Governor and the Legislature, accusing both of “trying to rig the maps.”

10. On July 20, 2025, Mr. O’Rourke went national airwaves to propose that Democrats

need to be “ruthless about getting back in power” and should “deny” the Texas Legislature a

3
quorum. Beto O’Rourke Speaks To CNN's Jake Tapper About Proposed Redistricting In Texas, CNN

(July 20, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/4ybep7ye.

11. Mr. O’Rourke conspired with PXP to enact a plan to aid and abet Texas Democrats

with fleeing the state and abandoning their legislative duties, by providing the Democrats cover for

their personal expenses.

12. To accomplish this, Defendants organized and held rallies across the state and the

nation fundraising. Defendants made phone calls and sent emails, texts, and marketing materials

to Texas consumers seeking donations.

13. Defendants promised Texas Democrats that if they broke quorum, Defendants

would “have [their] back,” would give them “an initial amount to get [them] off the ground,” and

would “fundraise” such that “everything that comes in goes toward that effort.” Taylor

Goldenstein, Democrats who fled Texas are racking up a huge bill. Who is paying the tab?, Hous. Chron.

(Aug. 5, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/56uzbyve.

14. In reliance on those offers, Democratic members of the Texas House of

Representatives boarded luxurious chartered private planes and absconded to places where they

‘knew’ the Governor had “no power to reach.” See Emergency Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto,

In Re Greg Abbott, No. 25-0674 n. 5 (Tex.) (filed Aug. 5, 2025); Hear top Texas Democrat’s response

to Gov. Abbott’s threat, CNN (Aug. 4, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/j9r4b5pb.

15. Following the departure of the Democratic members, the Texas House of

Representatives acted in accordance with Article III, § 10 of the Texas Constitution and its Rules

of Procedure to (1) instruct its sergeant-at-arms to secure and maintain the attendance of absentee

4
Members, and (2) issue civil arrest warrants for the members who had deliberately broken quorum

without excuse.

16. Meanwhile, at Defendants’ fundraising rallies and in numerous media appearances,

Mr. O’Rourke urged consumers to text the word “fight” to “20377” in order to make political

donations and “support these brave Texas Democrats,” who, he claimed, the Governor was

attempting to “replace” with “cronies” and “corrupt republicans.” 3

17. Oddly—without any apparent challenge—Mr. O’Rourke told some rally-goers that

there were “no bribe[s]” in Defendants’ fundraising scheme. 4

18. When consumers followed Mr. O’Rourke’s instructions, they received a text

message response that purported to be from Mr. O’Rourke containing the following

misrepresentations.

3
See Beto O’Rourke (@BetoORourke), X (Aug. 7, 2025, 10:22 a.m.) (video of Oklahoma City, OK Rally at 1:31).
4
See Beto O’Rourke (@BetoORourke), X (Aug. 6, 2025, 10:46 a.m.) (video of Omaha, NE Rally at 01:54)

5
19. The hyperlink then directed consumers to an ActBlue page for PXP, wherein

consumers were prompted to make political donations.

20. Defendants claim that these unlawful and deceptive fundraising efforts resulted in

“tens of thousands” of donations. Beto O'Rourke tells CNN Texas Democrats who fled the state

can “stay out long enough to stop this deal,” CNN (accessed Aug. 8, 2025),

https://tinyurl.com/p3devs4v.

21. After two weeks out of state, Democratic lawmakers returned a quorum to Austin

on August 18, 2025.

22. Upon the return of the Democratic lawmakers, the Legislature was able to address

the items set forth on the Governor’s Special Session Agenda.

23. As a result of the quorum-break’s conclusion, Defendants no longer appear to be

engaged in the unlawful and deceptive fundraising practices described herein.

A. Defendants Fundraising Efforts Were Unlawful, Constitute Bribery, And—
Unbeknownst to Donors— Were Being Used to Support Impermissible
Personal Expenditures.

24. Unbeknownst to donors and potential donors, Defendants’ fundraising scheme was

unlawful and was being used to impermissibly support personal expenditures.

25. First, the Texas Penal Code provides that a person commits felony bribery if the

person “offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept…

(3) any benefit as consideration for a violation of a duty imposed by law on a public servant.” Here,

there can be no question: Texas Legislators are duty-bound to convene when the Governor calls a

Special Session. See Tex. Const. art. III, § 5; see also Emergency Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto,

6
p. 4, In Re Greg Abbott, No. 25-0674 (Tex.) (“[s]howing up to conduct legislative business is not

cast by the Constitution as optional. Instead, by using the word ‘shall,’ the Constitution imposes a

mandate.”)

26. By offering to (a) fundraise and (b) help pay for legislative fines and hotel, travel,

and dining expenses if Democratic legislators broke quorum, Defendants offered, conferred, and

agreed to confer benefits on those Democratic legislators in exchange for violation of the

legislators’ Constitutional duties. See Tex. Pen. Code 36.01(3) (defining a “benefit” as “anything

reasonably regarded as pecuniary gain or pecuniary advantage”).

27. Second, the Texas Elections Code expressly prohibits the use of political

contributions for personal use. Tex. Elec. Code § 253.035. In this context, “personal use” is

defined as “a use that primarily furthers individual or family purposes not connected with the

performance of duties or activities as a candidate for or holder of a public office.”

28. Notably too, according to the Legislature’s self-created rules on “quorum and

attendance,”—which mandate a daily fine of $500 for unexcused legislative absences— legislators

“may not make any payment… from funds accepted as political contributions.” Rule 5, § 3 (f), H.

Res. 4, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2025). Thus, payment for such fines necessarily must come

from personal funds.

29. Third, aside from political contributions, Texas legislators are generally prohibited

from accepting benefits with a value equal to, or greater than, $50. Tex. Pen. Code §§ 36.08, 36.10.

30. Upon information and belief, Defendants conduct may further violate other laws

governing public corruption and campaign finance laws.

B. In Spite of This Court’s Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Defendants
Engaged In Unlawful and Deceptive Fundraising Practices to Tarrant County.

7
31. On Friday, August 8th, the State filed this lawsuit and obtained an Emergency

Temporary Restraining Order from this Court to prevent Defendants from engaging in these same

unlawful and deceptive fundraising practices in a rally that they planned to host in Tarrant County

on Saturday, August 9th.

32. But rather than abide by this Court’s orders, Defendants proceeded with the rally

and used this Court’s TRO as a rallying cry to engage in additional unlawful and deceptive

fundraising. For example— speaking on the subject of the TRO—Defendant O’Rourke implored

Tarrant County rally goers to text “fight” to “20377” to “donate,” “raise money to support,”

and “have the backs of these fighters.” According to Mr. O’Rourke, “there are no refs in this

game— f*ck the rules— we are going to win, whatever it takes.”

33. During this August 9th rally in Tarrant County, Texas, Defendants raised funds for

non-political purposes, including to unlawfully fund out-of-state travel, hotel, and dining

accommodations or services to the quorum breaking Texas Democratic legislators and to assist in

funding the payment of fines provided under Texas House rules for unexcused legislative absences.

Defendants raised these funds in a confusing, misleading, and deceptive manner (and in violation

of this Court’s TRO) by raising these funds through the ActBlue platform.

34. Additionally, Defendants have openly expressed their defiance of the Court’s TRO

elsewhere too.

VI. LEGAL CLAIMS
A. Deceptive Trade Practices in the Solicitation and Receipt of Donations.

35. The State incorporates the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully herein.

8
36. Defendants represented to donors, potential donors, and the public at large that

donations submitted through Defendant PXP’s ActBlue page were being used for lawful political

purposes, including to support Texas Democrats in their “fight” against Trump and to protect

Democratic House seats from the Governor’s attempts to replace Democrats with “cronies” and

“corrupt republicans.” 5

37. But this is not true. Contrary to Defendant O’Rourke’s express claims otherwise,

Defendants’ actions constituted prima facie bribery under Texas law. What is more, the donations

were not being used for political purposes. Rather, the donations were being used for impermissible

personal purposes to evade the very political “fight” that they were being solicited to support, to

flout the Constitution, and to avoid enforcement of the Texas House’s legislative warrants.

38. As such, Defendants have, in the course of trade and commerce, engaged in false,

misleading, and deceptive acts and practices, as declared unlawful by §17.46(a) and (b) of the Texas

Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Such acts and practices include, but are not limited to:

a. Engaging in false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade
or commerce in violation of DTPA § 17.46(a);

b. Causing confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, approval, or certification
of goods or services in violation of DTPA § 17.46(b)(2);

c. Representing that goods or services have approval, characteristics, uses, or
benefits which they do not have in violation of DTPA § 17.46(b)(5);

d. Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade,
if they are of another in violation of DTPA § 17.46(b)(7); and

e. Failing to disclose information concerning goods or services that was known at the
time of the transaction when such failure to disclose such information was
intended to induce consumers into a transaction into which the consumer would

5
See Beto O’Rourke (@BetoORourke), X (Aug. 7, 2025, 10:22 a.m.) (video of Oklahoma City, OK Rally at 1:31).

9
not have entered had the information been disclosed, in violation of DTPA §
17.46(b)(24).

36. Pursuant to the DTPA, the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division is

authorized to bring an action against “any person” who the Division “has reason to believe… is

engaging in, has engaged in, or is about to engage in” a DTPA violation. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code

§ 17.47(a). This includes corporate agents, who may be held personally liable for their participation

in misrepresentations. Miller v. Keyser, 90 S.W.3d 712, 716-17 (Tex. 2002).

37. In the present matter, Defendant O’Rourke personally made misrepresentations

that form the subject matter of the present lawsuit.

B. Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto 6

38. The State incorporates the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully herein.

39. It is well-established that the Attorney General can terminate a Texas corporation’s

right to do business in Texas “whenever sufficient cause exists.” Tex. Const. art. IV, § 22; Tex.

Gov’t. Code § 402.023. The Texas Supreme Court recently reiterated that such sufficient cause

may exist where a corporation is engaged in “violations of criminal law.” Paxton v. Annunciation

House, Inc., No. 24-0573, 2025 WL 1536224, at *12 (Tex. May 30, 2025).

40. Among the criminal laws that Texas-chartered corporations must comply with are

the State’s prohibitions against bribery of a public servant (Tex. Pen. Code § 36.02) and hindering

the apprehension of a fugitive (Tex. Pen. Code § 38.05).

41. Under the bribery statute, a person commits a second degree felony if he

intentionally or knowingly “offers, confers, or agrees to confer,” “any benefit” as consideration

6
This legal claim is the subject of a contemporaneously filed (or immediately forthcoming) Motion for Leave.

10
for (1) a public servant’s “vote” or “other exercise of discretion,” or (2) for the public servant to

“violat[e] a duty imposed by law on [the] public servant.” Tex. Pen. Code § 36.02

42. With respect to unlawful hindering of fugitive apprehension, the Penal Code

prohibits a person from “provid[ing] or aid[ing] in providing… any means of avoiding arrest” to a

person with intent to “hinder the arrest of [that person] under the authority of a warrant.” Tex.

Pen. Code § 38.05 (a)(2).

43. As alleged herein, Defendant PXP by and through Defendant O’Rourke and other

agents, has not only violated each of these penal code provisions, but persisted in its violations in

contravention of this Court’s August 8, 2025 TRO, and did so in a particularly egregious manner

that brought the Texas House of Representatives to a legislative standstill and prevented the

State’s ability to address critical State interests, including flood relief, property tax relief, public

school reforms, matters relating to the protection of women’s privacy, and congressional re-

districting for the people of this State.

44. Accordingly, for the reasons identified herein, the State brings this petition in the

nature of quo warranto to judicially forfeit Defendant PXP’s charter, rights, and privileges.

VII. NOTICE OF LIEN

54. Pursuant to Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 12.201, this filing operates as a notice of lien on

all of Defendant PXP’s property in this state.

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

55. The State incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein. As explained above, Defendants have engaged unlawful conduct and deceptive trade

11
practices in violation of state law. NOW THEREFORE, the State respectfully prays that the Court

enter judgment in its favor and order the following:

a. Civil penalties in favor of the State in an amount of not more than $10,000 per
DTPA violation;

b. Attorneys’ fees and all costs and expenses;

c. That quo warranto relief is warranted;

d. That PXP forfeit its rights and privileges as a registered corporation and be
permanently enjoined from conducting any operations in Texas;

e. That PXP’s registration is immediately dissolved and void;

f. A receiver be appointed to wind-up PXP’s affairs in the State; and

g. Any and all further relief to which the State may be entitled.

[signature page to follow]

12
Dated: October 22, 2025. Respectfully submitted,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

BRENT WEBSTER
First Assistant Attorney General

RALPH MOLINA
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

AUSTIN KINGHORN
Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation

/s/ Justin Sassaman
JUSTIN SASSAMAN
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar No. 24143383

ROB FARQUHARSON
Deputy Chief, Consumer Protection Division
State Bar No. 24100550

JOHNATHAN STONE
Chief, Consumer Protection Division
State Bar No. 24071779

Office of the Attorney General of Texas
Consumer Protection Division
300 W. 15th St.
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: (214) 290-8811
Fax: (214) 969-7615

Justin.Sassaman@oag.texas.gov
Rob.Farquharson@oag.texas.gov

ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE

13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent to all
counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on October 22, 2025.

/s/ Justin Sassaman___
Justin Sassaman

14
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.

Emily Samuels on behalf of Justin Sassaman
Bar No. 24143383
emily.samuels@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 107151472
Filing Code Description: Amended Filing
Filing Description: 20251022 States 2nd Amended Petition
Status as of 10/22/2025 12:46 PM CST

Associated Case Party: THEPOWERED BY PEOPLE

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Sean McCaffity 24013122 sjmdocsnotifications@textrial.com 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

George Quesada 16427750 gtqdocsnotifications@textrial.com 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Mimi Marziani mmarziani@msgpllc.com 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Joaquin Gonzalez jgonzalez@msgpllc.com 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Rebecca Stevens bstevens@msgpllc.com 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Joseph Jaworski 10593200 joejaws@jaworskilawfirm.com 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Wolfgang P.Hirczy de Mino wphdmphd@gmail.com 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Pauline Sisson pauline.sisson@oag.texas.gov 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Emily Samuels emily.samuels@oag.texas.gov 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Kathy Gatzemeyer kgatzemeyer@textrial.com 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: THESTATE OF TEXAS

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Rob Farquharson rob.farquharson@oag.texas.gov 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Johnathan Stone johnathan.stone@oag.texas.gov 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Tisha James Tisha.James@oag.texas.gov 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Justin Sassaman justin.sassaman@oag.texas.gov 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Jacob Przada Jacob.Przada@oag.texas.gov 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM 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.

Emily Samuels on behalf of Justin Sassaman
Bar No. 24143383
emily.samuels@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 107151472
Filing Code Description: Amended Filing
Filing Description: 20251022 States 2nd Amended Petition
Status as of 10/22/2025 12:46 PM CST

Associated Case Party: THESTATE OF TEXAS

Jacob Przada Jacob.Przada@oag.texas.gov 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Abby Smith abby.smith@oag.texas.gov 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Clayton Watkins clayton.watkins@oag.texas.gov 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM SENT

Kelley Owens kelley.owens@oag.texas.gov 10/22/2025 11:39:00 AM 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.

Pauline Sisson on behalf of Abigail Smith
Bar No. 24141756
pauline.sisson@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 107216071
Filing Code Description: Letter
Filing Description: 20251023 Advisory to Ct re 2d Am Pet with Ex A
Status as of 10/23/2025 1:59 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Maria Williamson maria.williamson@oag.texas.gov 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Mimi Marziani mmarziani@msgpllc.com 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Joaquin Gonzalez jgonzalez@msgpllc.com 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Brian Falligant` bfalligant@inquestresources.com 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Pauline Sisson pauline.sisson@oag.texas.gov 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Sean McCaffity 24013122 sjmdocsnotifications@textrial.com 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM ERROR

Rebecca Stevens bstevens@msgpllc.com 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Emily Samuels emily.samuels@oag.texas.gov 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Rebecca Neumann rneumann@textrial.com 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Nancy Bentley ndbentley@tarrantcountytx.gov 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Lisa Adams LAAdams@tarrantcountytx.gov 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: State of Texas

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

William Cole 24124187 William.Cole@oag.texas.gov 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Rob Farquharson rob.farquharson@oag.texas.gov 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Johnathan Stone johnathan.stone@oag.texas.gov 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

William Peterson William.Peterson@oag.texas.gov 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Justin Sassaman justin.sassaman@oag.texas.gov 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT

Abby Smith abby.smith@oag.texas.gov 10/23/2025 1:51:24 PM SENT