Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company

ACCEPTED
15-24-00114-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
11/25/2025 4:10 PM
No. 15-24-00114-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
CECILE ERWIN YOUNG, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE
COMMISSIONER OF THE TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
Appellant,

v.

COOK CHILDREN’S HEALTH PLAN; TEXAS CHILDREN’S HEALTH PLAN;
SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN, INC.; AND WELLPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellees.

On Appeal from the 455th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas
Cause No. D-1-GN-24-003839

APPELLEES’ JOINT EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY AND
MOTION FOR REHEARING OF RULE 29.3 MOTIONS

** RELIEF REQUESTED BY DECEMBER 4, 2025 **
RELIEF REQUESTED

Appellees Cook Children’s Health Plan (“Cook Children’s”); Texas

Children’s Health Plan (“Texas Children’s”); Superior HealthPlan, Inc.

(“Superior”); and Wellpoint Insurance Company (“Wellpoint”) (collectively,

“Appellees”) respectfully request that the Court (1) issue an administrative stay to

preserve their rights pending final resolution of their requests for temporary relief

and (2) rehear their previously denied Rule 29.3 motions. See Order 3 (Nov. 12,

2025). Given that December 5, 2025, is likely the earliest date on which the Texas

Supreme Court might rule on Appellees’ pending mandamus petitions, see infra

pp. 4-5, Appellees seek emergency consideration of their request for an

administrative stay and a ruling from this Court by December 4.

An administrative stay enforcing the terms of the trial court’s superseded

temporary injunction will protect the parties’ rights and this Court’s jurisdiction.

This is necessary because, if the Supreme Court denies the mandamus petitions or

returns the issue of temporary relief to this Court, the Commissioner might contend

the parties’ October 24, 2024, standstill agreement has expired and seek to

immediately finalize the procurement and execute contracts in an effort to moot the

1
case (in whole or in part) prior to disposition of this interlocutory appeal—all before

Appellees are able to obtain emergency relief from this Court.1

This is more than a mere possibility: The Commissioner’s most recent filing

advocated a “swift end” to this case, Appellant’s Resp. in Opp’n to Appellees’

Second Joint Mot. for Extension of Time to File Appellees’ Brs. 4 (Oct. 29, 2025),

and, just today, the Commissioner refused to agree at this time that the parties’

standstill agreement would remain in effect if, after the Supreme Court rules on

Appellees’ mandamus petitions, the parties need to return to this Court for a full

decision on the merits of the Appellees’ Rule 29.3 motions, see Ex. 1. By all

indications, the Commissioner is poised to act at the first perceived opportunity,

even—or especially—before the merits of Appellees’ requests for temporary relief

are fully considered by any court and before disposition of the Commissioner’s

appeal. An administrative stay would maintain the status quo and give this Court and

the Supreme Court the opportunity to fully address the merits of the Rule 29.3

motions.2

1
As noted in Appellees’ Rule 29.3 motions, the Commissioner’s predecessor
attempted a similar gambit in a prior procurement challenge. See Wilson v. Cmty.
Health Choice Tex., Inc., 607 S.W.3d 843, 848 (Tex. App.—Austin 2020, pet.
denied).
2
Appellees believe the parties’ standstill agreement continues to bind the
Commissioner during the pendency of this joint motion, as Appellees seek “a ruling”
from this Court on their timely filed Rule 29.3 motions. Order 2. Appellees

2
Appellees also request that the Court rehear their previously denied Rule 29.3

motions. The Court’s order denying the motions (the “Order”) is inconsistent with

the purpose of the parties’ standstill agreement, which was intended to allow time

for this Court to fully evaluate the merits of those motions without necessitating

emergency briefing or consideration. It was meant to facilitate—not obviate—the

Court’s full review of Appellees’ request for temporary relief needed to forestall the

imminent risk of significant injury and protect the Court’s jurisdiction. And, because

the Texas Supreme Court’s mandamus review is not guaranteed, the Order creates

the possibility that no court will fully consider and decide the merits of the Rule 29.3

motions before the Commissioner proceeds with finalizing the challenged

procurement and executing the intended contracts—precipitating the serious

constitutional questions about supersedeas the Supreme Court has repeatedly

flagged. The merits of the requests for temporary relief should be fully adjudicated

by this Court, and Appellees therefore seek rehearing.

BACKGROUND

On November 12, 2025, the Court issued the Order denying Appellees’

requests for temporary relief under Rule 29.3. See Order 3. The denial was based on

nevertheless request an administrative stay because the Commissioner has not
agreed to this interpretation of the agreement, see Ex. 1, necessitating judicial
intervention to protect Appellees’ rights pending appeal.

3
temporary, contingent protection provided by a standstill agreement Appellees

previously reached with the Commissioner “where [she] agreed to abide by the terms

of the trial court’s temporary injunction order until any Rule 29.3 motions are fully

resolved.” Id. at 2. The relevant language of the standstill agreement states:

Notwithstanding any supersedeas rights, [HHSC] will comply with the
terms of the Temporary Injunction Order until the latest of (a) 30 days
after the end of the 89th Regular Session of the Texas Legislature,
regardless of the appellate court’s ruling on the Joint Motion to Abate;
(b) a ruling from the appellate court on any request for temporary orders
under TRAP 29.3 filed within seven days of the Appeal’s reinstatement;
or (c) disposition of any mandamus proceeding in the Texas Supreme
Court reviewing a ruling on a request described in (b) above, provided
that the proceeding is filed within seven days of such ruling.

Id. In light of this language, the Court concluded that,

[u]nder the parties’ agreement, [the Commissioner] will continue to
abide by the terms of the trial court’s temporary injunction regardless
of how this Court rules on Appellees’ motions until the Texas Supreme
Court resolves the issue. Because this Court’s decision will not affect
Young’s adherence to the terms of the temporary injunction, Appellees
have failed to demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm if this
Court does not grant Appellees the relief they seek.

Id. at 2-3 (footnote omitted).

Appellees subsequently sought review of this Court’s denial of Appellees’

Rule 29.3 motions in the Supreme Court. On November 19, Cook Children’s and

Texas Children’s filed a joint petition for writ of mandamus and, alternatively,

petition for writ of injunction. That same day, Superior filed a separate petition for

writ of mandamus and, alternatively, petition for writ of injunction with the Supreme

4
Court, while Wellpoint filed its own petition for writ of mandamus. The petitions

remain pending with the Supreme Court.

On November 21, counsel for Texas Children’s contacted counsel for the

Commissioner regarding the status of the parties’ standstill agreement. Recognizing

that this Court’s “denial of [] Appellees’ Rule 29.3 motions based on the parties’

standstill agreement has created the unanticipated position that Appellees’ Rule 29.3

motions may not be fully evaluated and disposed of on the merits absent further

review,” Appellees sought the Commissioner’s agreement “that under those

circumstances the Commissioner will, pursuant to the parties’ standstill agreement,

continue to comply with the terms of the temporary injunction at least until any

renewed Rule 29.3 motions … are decided on the merits by [this] Court and, if

necessary, the Supreme Court of Texas.” Ex. 1. Counsel for the Commissioner

responded that “[t]he Commissioner is not currently in a position to agree to [this]

request.” Id.3

3
The Commissioner further stated that, “[i]f the [Supreme Court] asks for a
response to the mandamus petitions, we may be in a position to revisit at that time.”
Ex. 1. That, however, does not obviate the need for the administrative stay requested
in this motion because the Supreme Court may deny the mandamus petitions without
requesting a response.

5
ARGUMENT

I. The Court should immediately issue an administrative stay.

Appellees respectfully request immediate entry of an administrative stay to

avoid the constitutionally problematic scenario where no court fully reviews their

Rule 29.3 motions on the merits. That scenario is now a real possibility if the

Supreme Court declines the parties’ pending mandamus petitions without addressing

the merits of Appellees’ requests for temporary relief.

While Appellees anticipate the Supreme Court will order relief consistent with

the trial court’s injunction in ruling on their mandamus petitions, the procedural

peculiarities and curious posture of this case might instead yield a contingent or

uncertain result—one the Commissioner might interpret as terminating the parties’

standstill agreement and allowing her to immediately move forward with finalizing

the challenged procurement and execution of contracts, all before Appellees are able

to obtain emergency relief from this Court to enforce that agreement. This case is

too important—with dire consequences for Appellees (indeed, potentially existential

consequences for Cook Children’s and Texas Children’s) and millions of vulnerable

Texans—to allow the Commissioner to finalize an illegal procurement (as the trial

court found) before Appellees’ Rule 29.3 motions are fully considered on the merits.

Appellees therefore request that the Court take immediate measures to protect their

6
rights to ensure that an appellate court will fully address the merits of the Rule 29.3

motions.

Specifically, Appellees request an immediate administrative stay to preclude

irreparable harm (as described in the Rule 29.3 motions and associated briefing, the

substance of which Appellees incorporate by reference) and preserve the Court’s

ability to rule on the merits of the motions before the Commissioner’s further

procurement activities moot the requested relief. “Administrative stays …. freeze

legal proceedings until the court can rule on a party’s request for expedited relief.”

In re State, 711 S.W.3d 641, 643 n.2 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (citation

modified); see also Administrative Stays: Power and Procedure, 97 NOTRE DAME

L. REV. 1941, 1952 (2022) (courts “have largely viewed administrative stays as a

kind of adjunct to another form of short-term relief, entered to aid the court in

resolving [that] request”). Given the risks of irreparable harm that would accompany

the Commissioner’s resumption of the challenged procurement, a temporary freeze

of the status quo—which is to say, extension of the trial court’s temporary injunction

on an administrative basis—should be ordered while the Rule 29.3 motions are

resolved and Appellees’ requests for temporary relief are fully and finally

adjudicated on the merits.

In light of this Court’s stated intention “to set the case promptly” for

resolution, Order 3, any such administrative stay (or, for that matter, temporary relief

7
under Rule 29.3) would be of limited duration—and therefore pose no risk to the

Commissioner, who, after all, already agreed to continue the trial court’s temporary

injunction for more than a year and who has identified no evidence suggesting the

stay has caused any harm to her, HHSC, or Texas Medicaid beneficiaries.

II. The Court should rehear Appellees’ Rule 29.3 motions.

Additionally, Appellees respectfully request that the Court rehear and fully

address the merits of Appellees’ motions for temporary relief.

In relying on the standstill agreement to deny the Rule 29.3 motions, the Court

appears to have misunderstood the purpose of the agreement. It was never intended

to excuse full consideration of the merits of temporary relief. Just the opposite: The

agreement was meant to maintain the status quo and preserve the parties’ rights—

and appellate jurisdiction—so that this Court could fully evaluate and address those

merits in the normal course. The agreement’s temporary backstop, whereby the

Commissioner agreed to abide by the terms of the temporary injunction on a

contingent basis, was not meant to (and does not) demonstrate a lack of irreparable

harm. Instead, the agreement served the same function as (and therefore obviated the

need for Appellees to seek) a motion for emergency temporary relief or an

administrative stay during the pendency of the Rule 29.3 motions. By so agreeing,

the parties sought to avoid spending their resources on emergency briefing and

8
ensure predictability, allowing the Court to resolve the motions without the need for

expedited action.

The Court, however, concluded that the standstill agreement precluded

Appellees from showing irreparable harm because the Commissioner “will continue

to abide by the terms of the trial court’s temporary injunction regardless of how this

Court rules on Appellees’ motions until the Texas Supreme Court resolves the

issue.” Order 2-3. While that observation about the parties’ agreement is technically

correct, the Order, when considered along with the standard of review for a petition

for writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court, creates the unsettling—and likely

unconstitutional—possibility that no court will fully review the Rule 29.3 motions

on the merits because of an agreement among the parties to ensure that a court would

have the opportunity to do just that.

That no party intended the agreement to be used to avoid a full evaluation of

the merits of the Rule 29.3 motions, including irreparable harm, is readily apparent

from the briefing on the motions. Nowhere in the Commissioner’s fifty-page

opposition did she urge the denial of the motions on the ground adopted by the Court.

Instead, she addressed the motions on their merits—likelihood of success of the

underlying appeal, balance of harms, and so on—and did not once suggest the Court

could or should rely on the parties’ agreement to avoid a full merits inquiry. Not

even her amici, who expended considerable ink urging the Court to deny Rule 29.3

9
relief under a host of novel theories, urged this outcome. And no wonder: This

unexpected result is premised on a misunderstanding of the parties’ intentions in

entering into the limited standstill agreement. Far from rendering meaningless the

Court’s consideration of Appellees’ Rule 29.3 motions, the agreement merely

obviated the need for emergency relief to prevent the motions from being mooted

before they could be decided on the merits. This Court’s review of the merits of the

requests was presumed and indispensable; after all, the Supreme Court’s review at

this stage is limited to reviewing this Court’s ruling for a clear abuse of discretion.

The Court’s decision declining to address the full merits of the Rule 29.3

motions puts Appellees in an impossible position. The Supreme Court’s mandamus

review is not guaranteed. See In re Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. 24-0239, 2025 WL

2989490, at *4 (Tex. Oct. 24, 2025) (op. on denial of mandamus) (observing that

Supreme “Court’s failure to grant a petition for writ of mandamus is not an

adjudication of, nor even a comment on, the merits of a case in any respect, including

whether mandamus relief was available”). As it stands now, if the Supreme Court

denies the pending mandamus petitions without reaching the merits of the Rule 29.3

motions, then Appellees will have been deprived of all available review of their

requests for temporary relief pending appeal. That is contrary to the Supreme Court’s

decision in In re Texas Education Agency, which established a party’s right to seek

temporary relief in the face of the State’s automatic supersedeas rights. See 619

10
S.W.3d 679, 689-90 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding). It is also counter to the Supreme

Court’s observation about the need for Rule 29.3 relief to avoid the “serious

constitutional questions” that would result if parties had no recourse for preserving

their rights during an interlocutory appeal. In re Geomet Recycling LLC, 578 S.W.3d

82, 89 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding) (“If [party] actually had no recourse for the

preservation of its rights during an interlocutory appeal, we would need to address

its argument that such an arrangement raises serious constitutional questions.”).

The availability of Rule 29.3 relief is illusory if appellate courts never reach

the merits of such motions. The Order not only raises the specter that the Rule 29.3

motions will be denied without any court’s full consideration, but also risks the

effective reversal of the trial court’s temporary injunction before this Court decides

the Commissioner’s appeal if she moves forward with the challenged procurement

after the standstill agreement expires—a consequence of the effect of supersedeas

on the temporary injunction, which halted such action while the underlying ultra

vires claims proceeded in the trial court. Rule 29.3 relief is needed to foreclose this

unfair (and unconstitutional) result.

Accordingly, given the parties’ standstill agreement was never meant to

obviate this Court’s full consideration of Appellees’ Rule 29.3 motions and that the

Supreme Court’s consideration of those motions in the first instance is not assured,

Appellees respectfully urge this Court to rehear the motions and reach the full merits

11
of their requests for temporary relief. The merits and equities underlying the

Rule 29.3 motions—Appellees’ probable right to relief on their ultra vires claims;

the imminent risk of irreparable harm to themselves and their employees and

members; and the public interest in ensuring consistent, quality healthcare for

vulnerable Texans—require nothing less.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

Appellees respectfully request that the Court immediately order an

administrative stay and rehear their Rule 29.3 motions to fully address the merits.

12
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Warren S. Huang /s/ Amy Warr
Susan Feigin Harris Amy Warr
State Bar No. 06876980 State Bar No. 00795708
susan.harris@nortonrosefulbright.com awarr@adjtlaw.com
Warren S. Huang Anna M. Baker
State Bar No. 00796788 State Bar No. 00791362
warren.huang@nortonrosefulbright.com abaker@adjtlaw.com
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US, LLP ALEXANDER DUBOSE & JEFFERSON
1550 Lamar, Suite 2000 LLP
Houston, Texas 77010 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1450
Telephone: (713) 651-5151 Austin, Texas 78701-2709
Telephone: (512) 482-9300
Paul Trahan
State Bar No. 24003075 Karen C. Burgess
paul.trahan@nortonrosefulbright.com State Bar No. 00796276
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US, LLP kburgess@burgesslawpc.com
98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100 Katie Dolan-Galaviz
Austin, Texas 78701 State Bar No. 24069620
Telephone: (512) 474-5201 kgalaviz@burgesslawpc.com
BURGESS LAW PC
Thomas A. Coulter 404 West 13th Street
State Bar No. 04885500 Austin, Texas 78701-1825
tom.coulter@nortonrosefulbright.com Telephone: (512) 482-8808
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US, LLP
799 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Matthew P. Gordon
Washington, D.C. 20001 Admission Pro Hac Vice
Telephone: (202) 662-0200 mgordon@perkinscoie.com
PERKINS COIE LLP
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200
TEXAS CHILDREN’S HEALTH PLAN Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: (206) 359.8000

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
COOK CHILDREN’S HEALTH PLAN

13
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP /s/ Stacy R. Obenhaus
Stacy R. Obenhaus
By: /s/ Richard B. Phillips, Jr. Texas Bar No. 15161570
Richard B. Phillips, Jr. sobenhaus@foley.com
Texas Bar No. 24032833 Michelle Y. Ku
rich.phillips@hklaw.com Texas Bar No. 24071452
mku@foley.com
One Arts Plaza FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
1722 Routh Street, Suite 15500 2021 McKinney, Suite 1600
Dallas, Texas 75201 Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 964-9500 (telephone) Telephone: (214) 999-3000
(214) 964-9501 (facsimile)
Robert F. Johnson III
Karen D. Walker Texas Bar No. 10786400
Admitted Pro Hac Vice rjohnson@foley.com
karen.walker@hklaw.com FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
Tiffany Roddenberry 600 Congress, Suite 3000
Admitted Pro Hac Vice Austin, Texas. 78701
tiffany.roddenberry@hklaw.com Telephone: (512) 542-7000

315 S. Calhoun Street, Suite 600 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 WELLPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY
(850) 425-5612 (telephone)
(850) 224-8832 (facsimile)

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN, INC.

14
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I certify that this

motion contains 2,686 words, excluding the contents listed in Rule 9.4(i)(1).

/s/ Warren Huang
Warren Huang

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

As set forth in Exhibit 1 to this motion, undersigned counsel for Texas

Children’s conferred with counsel for the Commissioner asking whether the

Commissioner would comply with the parties’ October 24, 2024 standstill

agreement until any renewed Rule 29.3 motions by Appellees are decided on the

merits by this Court in the event the parties need to return to this Court for a decision

on the merits of said motions after the Supreme Court of Texas rules on Appellees’

mandamus petitions. The Commissioner stated that she is not currently in a position

to agree to Appellees’ request, thereby necessitating the filing of this motion.

/s/ Warren Huang
Warren Huang

15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 25, 2025, a true and correct copy of this

motion, including any and all attachments, was served via electronic service through

eFile.TXCourts.gov on all parties through counsel of record, listed below:

Ken Paxton Rich Phillips
Attorney General of Texas rich.phillips@hklaw.com
Brent Webster One Arts Plaza
First Assistant Attorney General 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
William R. Peterson Dallas, Texas 75201
Solicitor General
William F. Cole Theresa Wanat
Principal Deputy Solicitor General theresa.wanat@hklaw.com
State Bar No. 24124187 HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
William.Cole@oag.texas.gov 811 Main Street, Suite 2500
Cory A. Scanlon Houston, Texas 77002
Assistant Solicitor General Telephone: (713) 821-7000
State Bar No. 24104599
Cory.Scanlon@oag.texas.gov Karen D. Walker
Thomas Bevilacqua karen.walker@hklaw.com
Assistant Attorney General HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
Jennifer Cook 315 S. Calhoun Street, Suite 600
Assistant Attorney General Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Stephanie A. Criscione Telephone: (850) 425-5612
Assistant Attorney General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL James E. Cousar
P.O. Box 12548 Capitol Station james.cousar@hklaw.com
Austin, Texas 78711-25848 HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
Telephone: (512) 475-4104 98 San Jacinto Blvd
Facsimile: (512) 320-0667 Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 469-6112
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT CECILE
ERWIN YOUNG, IN HER OFFICIAL COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE SUPERIOR
CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE HEALTH PLAN, INC.
COMMISSIONER OF THE TEXAS
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMISSION

16
Robert F. Johnson III Joseph R. Knight
rjohnson@foley.com jknight@ebbklaw.com
FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP EWELL, BROWN, BLANKE & KNIGHT
600 Congress Avenue, Suite 3000 LLP
Austin, Texas 78701 111 Congress Ave., 28th Floor
Telephone: (512) 542-7000 Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 770-4010
Michelle Y. Ku
mku@foley.com COUNSEL FOR AETNA BETTER
Brantley A. Smith HEALTH OF TEXAS, INC.
bsmith@foley.com
FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP, Cheryl Joseph LaFond
2021 McKinney, Suite 1600 clafond@scottdoug.com
Dallas, Texas 75201 Jason R. LaFond
Telephone: (214) 999-3000 jlafond@scottdoug.com
SCOTT, DOUGLAS & MCCONNICO LLP
Benjamin J. Grossman, 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400
bjgrossman@foley.com Austin, Texas 78701
FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP Telephone: (512) 495-6300
106 E. College Ave., Suite 900,
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 COUNSEL FOR MOLINA HEALTHCARE
Telephone: (850) 222- 6100 OF TEXAS, INC.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE WELLPOINT
INSURANCE COMPANY F/K/A
AMERIGROUP INSURANCE COMPANY

/s/ Warren Huang
Warren Huang

17
EXHIBIT 1
From: Cory Scanlon
To: Warren S. Huang
Cc: William Cole; Jeff Stephens; Mohmed Patel
Subject: RE: Young v. Cook Children"s Health Plan, et al. - Question re: Parties" Standstill Agreement
Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 8:38:15 AM
Attachments: shield-advisory.png
chevron-light.png

External email

Hello Warren,

The Commissioner is not currently in a position to agree to your request. If the Court asks for a
response to the mandamus petitions, we may be in a position to revisit it at that time.

Happy Thanksgiving to you, your team, and your families.

Kind regards,

Cory

From: Warren S. Huang <warren.huang@nortonrosefulbright.com>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 5:36 PM
To: Cory Scanlon <Cory.Scanlon@oag.texas.gov>
Cc: William Cole <William.Cole@oag.texas.gov>; Jeff Stephens <Jeff.Stephens@oag.texas.gov>;
Mohmed Patel <Mohmed.Patel@oag.texas.gov>
Subject: Re: Young v. Cook Children's Health Plan, et al. - Question re: Parties' Standstill Agreement

Cory,

Thanks for the update. Please let me know what the Commissioner decides by the close of
business on Tuesday.

Warren

From: Cory Scanlon <Cory.Scanlon@oag.texas.gov>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 2:59 PM
To: Warren S. Huang <warren.huang@nortonrosefulbright.com>
Cc: William Cole <William.Cole@oag.texas.gov>; Jeff Stephens <Jeff.Stephens@oag.texas.gov>;
Mohmed Patel <Mohmed.Patel@oag.texas.gov>
Subject: RE: Young v. Cook Children's Health Plan, et al. - Question re: Parties' Standstill Agreement

Warren,
Some of our HHSC folks need to discuss your request. We should have a response for you sometime
tomorrow, but it might not be by noon.

Best,

Cory A. Scanlon

Assistant Solicitor General

Office of the Attorney General

Direct: 512-936-1820

From: Warren S. Huang <warren.huang@nortonrosefulbright.com>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 3:47 PM
To: Cory Scanlon <Cory.Scanlon@oag.texas.gov>
Cc: William Cole <William.Cole@oag.texas.gov>
Subject: Young v. Cook Children's Health Plan, et al. - Question re: Parties' Standstill Agreement

Cory,

The Fifteenth Court’s denial of the Appellees' Rule 29.3 motions based on the parties’ standstill
agreement has created the unanticipated position that Appellees’ Rule 29.3 motions may not be
fully evaluated and disposed of on the merits absent further review by the Fifteenth Court. As a
result, after the Supreme Court rules on Appellees' mandamus petitions, the parties may need to
return to the Fifteenth Court for a decision on the full merits of the Appellees' Rule 29.3
motions. Do you agree that under those circumstances the Commissioner will, pursuant to the
parties' standstill agreement, continue to comply with the terms of the temporary injunction at
least until any renewed Rule 29.3 motions by the Appellees are decided on the merits by the
Fifteenth Court and, if necessary, the Supreme Court of Texas as set forth in the standstill
agreement?

Please let us know by next Tuesday, November 25th, at 12:00 noon. Thank you for your
consideration.

Warren Huang
Co-Counsel for Texas Children's Health Plan

This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to nrfus.postmaster@nortonrosefulbright.com.

Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP and Norton
Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc are separate legal entities and all of them are members of Norton Rose
Fulbright Verein, a Swiss verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein helps coordinate the activities of the
members but does not itself provide legal services to clients. Details of each entity, with certain regulatory
information, are available at nortonrosefulbright.com/legal-notices.
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.

Warren Huang on behalf of Warren Huang
Bar No. 796788
warren.huang@nortonrosefulbright.com
Envelope ID: 108470709
Filing Code Description: Motion for Emergency Relief
Filing Description: Motion for Emergency Relief
Status as of 11/25/2025 4:18 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Michaelle Peters mpeters@scottdoug.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Julie Wright julie.wright@nortonrosefulbright.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Amanda DoddsPrice amanda.price@squirepb.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Mandy Patterson mpatterson@adjtlaw.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Michelle Joyner mjoyner@scottdoug.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Abril Rivera arivera@scottdoug.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Nancy Villarreal nancy.villarreal@oag.texas.gov 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Jessie Johnson jessie.johnson@nortonrosefulbright.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

David Johns david@cobbjohns.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Cory Scanlon cory.scanlon@oag.texas.gov 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Stacey Jett sjett@adjltaw.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Victor Hernandez victor.hernandez@oag.texas.gov 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Cook Children's Health Plan

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Karen Burgess 796276 kburgess@burgesslawpc.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Anna Baker 791362 abaker@adjtlaw.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Amy Warr 795708 awarr@adjtlaw.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Juliana Bennington jbennington@perkinscoie.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Jonathan Hawley jhawley@perkinscoie.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM ERROR

Trisha Marino tmarino@perkinscoie.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Perkins Docketing Team DocketSEA@perkinscoie.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 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.

Warren Huang on behalf of Warren Huang
Bar No. 796788
warren.huang@nortonrosefulbright.com
Envelope ID: 108470709
Filing Code Description: Motion for Emergency Relief
Filing Description: Motion for Emergency Relief
Status as of 11/25/2025 4:18 PM CST

Associated Case Party: Cook Children's Health Plan

Perkins Docketing Team DocketSEA@perkinscoie.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Katie Dolan-Galaviz kgalaviz@burgesslawpc.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Matthew Gordon mgordon@perkinscoie.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Texas Children's Health Plan

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Mark Emery 24050564 mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Warren Huang 796788 warren.huang@nortonrosefulbright.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Paul Trahan 24003075 paul.trahan@nortonrosefulbright.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Susan Harris 6876980 susan.harris@nortonrosefulbright.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Thomas Coulter 4885500 tom.coulter@nortonrosefulbright.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Kayla Ahmed kayla.ahmed@nortonrosefulbright.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Wellpoint Insurance Company

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Robert Johnson 10786400 rjohnson@foley.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Michelle Ku 24071452 mku@foley.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Kristin Hernandez kristin.hernandez@foley.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Benjamin Grossman bjgrossman@foley.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Stacey Obenhaus sobenhaus@foley.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Superior Healthplan Inc.
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.

Warren Huang on behalf of Warren Huang
Bar No. 796788
warren.huang@nortonrosefulbright.com
Envelope ID: 108470709
Filing Code Description: Motion for Emergency Relief
Filing Description: Motion for Emergency Relief
Status as of 11/25/2025 4:18 PM CST

Associated Case Party: Superior Healthplan Inc.

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Richard Phillips 24032833 Rich.Phillips@hklaw.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

J McCaig 24070083 meghan.mccaig@outlook.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Karen Walker karen.walker@hklaw.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Tiffany Roddenberry tiffany.roddenberry@hklaw.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Texas Health and Human Services

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Victoria Gomez victoria.gomez@oag.texas.gov 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Jennifer Cook Jennifer.Cook@oag.texas.gov 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc.

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Joseph Knight 11601275 jknight@ebbklaw.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Cecile Erwin Young, Texas Health and Human Services

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Cory Scanlon 24104599 cory.scanlon@oag.texas.gov 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

William FCole William.Cole@oag.texas.gov 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Jeffrey Stephens jeff.stephens@oag.texas.gov 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Mohmed Patel mohmed.patel@oag.texas.gov 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.
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.

Warren Huang on behalf of Warren Huang
Bar No. 796788
warren.huang@nortonrosefulbright.com
Envelope ID: 108470709
Filing Code Description: Motion for Emergency Relief
Filing Description: Motion for Emergency Relief
Status as of 11/25/2025 4:18 PM CST

Associated Case Party: Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Jason R.LaFond jlafond@scottdoug.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT

Cheryl LaFond 24104015 clafond@scottdoug.com 11/25/2025 4:10:53 PM SENT