Lawsuit Mississippi True File #2

Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000966 Document #: 34 Filed: 08/10/2017 Page 1 of 2

Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000966 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 08/02/2017 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT F
Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000966
25CH1:17-cv-000916 Document #: 19-6
21-3 Filed: 08/02/2017
07/26/2017 Page 2
1 of 4
3
EXHIBIT C
Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000966
25CH1:17-cv-000916 Document #: 19-6
21-3 Filed: 08/02/2017
07/26/2017 Page 3
2 of 4
3
EXHIBIT C
Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000966
25CH1:17-cv-000916 Document #: 19-6
21-3 Filed: 08/02/2017
07/26/2017 Page 4
3 of 4
3
EXHIBIT C
IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI TRUE PLAINTIFF
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. G-2017-966 S/2
DAVID J. DZIELAK, Ph.D., et al. DEFENDANTS
RESPONSE TO MISSISSIPPI TRUES AND AMERIGROUP MISSISSIPPI, INC.S

MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND EXPEDITED HEARING
INTRODUCTION
Amerigroup and Mississippi True seek to unwind the MississippiCAN

procurement process before it is complete. This argument is premature, unsupported,
and not made in good faith. They have not exhausted their administrative remedies and
they know it. The Division has not issued a final decision on their protests. In fact,
Amerigroup and Mississippi True have not yet submitted their amended protests. This
Court, consequently, does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief on the merits that
they request.
Their alternative argument is that, if the Court does not unwind the process, it
should at least provide them with certain procedural protections during their protests.
The Court does not have jurisdiction to grant this relief either. There is no actual
dispute. In every respect, the relief sought is either already required by statute or has
been resolved by the Division agreeing not to submit the contracts to CMS for approval
until after the Personal Service Contract Review Board (PSCRB) considers the contracts.
In short, the claims regarding the merits are not ripe and the claims regarding the
protest process are moot.
Finally, even if the Court had jurisdiction, it should still deny the Motions. In the
first place, undoing the procurement process is part of the ultimate relief sought in the
Complaints and should not be granted as part of a preliminary injunction. Second, there
is no threat whatsoever of irreparable injury right now to either movant.
1
The Court should deny the Motions and let the Division complete the
administrative process.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Division released Request for Proposal 20170203 (RFP) for

MississippiCAN on February 3, 2017. Seven vendors submitted proposals. The Division
evaluated the proposals based on the stated evaluation factors and information
presented during oral presentations. On June 15, 2017, the Division announced its intent
to award the contracts to United, Magnolia, and Molina.
Amerigroup and Mississippi True filed their protests on June 29, 2017.
Mississippi True filed a Complaint seeking injunctive relief on July 12, and a separate
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Mississippi
True Motion) on July 13.1 The Motion sought an injunction allowing Mississippi True
the statutorily-required seven (7) days to submit an amended protest; requiring the
Division to obtain approval of the contracts from the PSCRB; and not allowing
execution or implementation of the contracts until Mississippi True could pursue its
judicial appeal rights.2
The Court conducted a hearing on Mississippi Trues Motion on July 20. Because
at least one indispensable party had not been joined or notified of the hearing, the Court
did not grant any relief. No irreparable harm has occurred.
On August 2, after being allowed to intervene, Amerigroup filed its own
Complaint3 and Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing
(Amerigroup Motion)4, mirroring Mississippi Trues.5 Amerigroups Motion also
added a request that the Court rescind the intended award and issue a new
procurement with new representatives to determine the award and protests.6
1 Doc. 5.
2 Id. at p. 1.
3 Doc. 19.
4 Doc. 20.
5 Magnolia, United, and Molina intervened as well.
6 Amerigroup Motion at p. 11.
2
Amerigroup set its Motion to be heard on August 14. Mississippi True joined
Amerigroups Motion on August 9.7 On August 10, Mississippi True noticed its own
Motion for hearing and then issued a subpoena for Dr. David Dzielak, the Divisions
Executive Director.8 On its own initiative, the Court quashed the subpoena the same
day.9
The Division has not yet issued a final agency decision on Amerigroups or
Mississippi Trues award protests. The Division will not issue its decision until after
Amerigroup and Mississippi True submit their amended bid protests, which are due by
the close of business on August 18, 2017. If it denies the protests, the Division intends to
submit the contracts and its decision to the PSCRB for consideration at the PSCRBs
September 19, 2017 meeting.
If the PSCRB approves the contracts, or declines to consider the contracts, the
Division will then submit them to CMS for review and approval. The contracts have
been signed by the partiesbecause CMS requires the parties signatures prior to its
reviewbut the contracts are not valid and enforceable until the Division issues its final
agency decision and the contracts have been approved by CMS.10
ARGUMENT
The Court should deny the Motions because it lacks jurisdiction to grant the
requested relief. Even if it had jurisdiction, it should summarily deny the Motions
anyway because Amerigroups Motion effectively seeks a permanent injunction without
discovery or a trial and there is no threat of irreparable harm.
7 Doc. 27.
8 Doc. 28 and Doc. 30. The Division expects that Mississippi True will attempt to use
some of the public records that the Division produced on August 9. The Division objects
to Mississippi True using these documents without first supplementing its Motion to
make any new arguments and allowing the Division an opportunity to respond.
9 Doc. 34. In its order, the Court also instructed the parties not to file anything else
without permission. The Division therefore intends to request permission to file this
Response, and will request permission and an extension of time to respond to the
Complaints filed by Amerigroup and Mississippi True if necessary.
10 RFP at 3.5, 3.6.
3
I. The Court does not have jurisdiction over either Protesters claims.
The threshold issue here is whether the Court has jurisdiction.11 It does not. The
Motions are, paradoxically, both moot and not yet ripe. Plaintiffs have not exhausted
their administrative remedies, so their claims on the merits are premature, and their
claims about the protest process are moot.
A. Amerigroup and Mississippi True have not exhausted their

administrative remedies.
It is well-settled that a party must exhaust available administrative remedies

before resorting to the courts.12 Plaintiffs here claim that the procurement process has
not been fair. They seek to rescind the intended award and restart the procurement
process with new representatives to decide the awards and the protests.13 There is
unquestionably an available administrative remedy for these claims. It is the award
protest process explained in the RFP14 , and the parties are in the middle of it.
Amerigroup and Mississippi True filed their protests on June 29. They then
requested a number of public records in order to supplement their protests. The
Division produced those records on August 9, pursuant to the Courts orders, and the
amended protests are due on August 18. The Division will carefully consider the
arguments made in any amended protest and decide the protest accordingly.
If the Division believes that the arguments have merit, it could award contracts
to Amerigroup and Mississippi True; or award a contract to just one of them; or re-start
the procurement process altogether; or fashion some other appropriate relief. In other
words, Amerigroup and Mississippi True could still win. Consequently, they have not
exhausted their administrative remedies, and their challenge in court is premature. The
Court must deny their Motion for lack of jurisdiction.
11 In re Wilborn, 590 So. 2d 1381, 1386 (Miss. 1991).

12 CLC of Biloxi, LLC v. Mississippi Div. of Medicaid, 189 So. 3d 726, 730 (Miss. 2016); see
also Everitt v. Lovitt, 192 So. 2d 422, 427-428 (Miss. 1966).
13 Amerigroup Motion at p. 11.
14 RFP at 3.8.
4
The Mississippi Supreme Courts decision in Tupelo Industries15 is controlling.

One of the issues there was whether the Chancery Court had jurisdiction to enjoin the
Mississippi Gaming Commission before the Commission had issued a final decision on
Tupelo Industries application to operate a bingo hall.16 The Commission had rejected
the appraisals in the application as insufficient, but had not issued a final decision
denying the application.17 The administrative process there, like here, was not complete.
The Chancery Court, nevertheless, issued a permanent injunction ordering the
Commission to issue the license.18
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Chancery Court did not have
jurisdiction to issue an injunction because Tupelo Industries had not exhausted its
administrative remedies.19 Tupelo Industries had improperly resorted to the courts
before there had been a final decision from the Commission. The Court reasoned that
[b]ecause the Gaming Commission is responsible for licensingTupelo Industries was
required to exhaust the administrative remedies available to it before resorting to the
courts for resolution of its dispute.20
As in Tupelo Industries, Plaintiffs here have resorted to the court before a final
agency decision. Specifically, Plaintiffs are asking this Court to require the Division to
rescind the award and appoint new representatives before the Division has even issued
a final decision on the contracts. The Court should follow Tupelo Industries and an
avalanche of other Mississippi cases requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies
15 Mississippi Gaming Comn v. Tupelo Industries, Inc., 747 So. 2d 287 (Miss. 1999).
16 Id. at 289.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 289-290 (We conclude the chancery court of Hinds County erred in granting
equitable relief to Tupelo Industries when an adequate statutory remedy was

available.).
20 Id. at 291.
5
before filing suit.21 The Court should find that it does not have jurisdiction to grant this
relief on the merits and should deny the Motion to the extent it seeks such relief.
B. Plaintiffs claims regarding the protest process are moot.
Claims are moot if a judgment would be of no practical benefit to the plaintiff or

detriment to the defendant.22 Courts do not have jurisdiction unless there is an actual
controversy at the time claims are raised.23 As an alternative to their request for a re-
start of the entire process, Amerigroup and Mississippi True request that the Court
provide certain procedural protections during the bid protest process. First, that the
Court ensure that they have no less than seven (7) working days from receiving the
unsealed proposals to supplement their protest.24 Second, that the Court enjoin the
Division from implementing the contracts or submitting them to CMS for approval
until the PSCRB approves unexecuted copies of the contracts.25
These procedural claims are moot. There is no actual controversy. The requested
relief is either required by statute or has been resolved by the Divisions agreement not
to submit the contracts to CMS for approval until after the PSCRB considers the
contracts. Any fear that the Division is going to jettison the protest process and try to
implement the contracts immediately is too speculative to avoid mooting the case.26
As for time to prepare an amended protest, there is no dispute that Plaintiffs will
receive their statutorily-required seven (7) working days. The Division has agreed that
their amended protests are due on August 18. It is even in the scheduling order entered
by the Court.27 That has never been an issue.
21 E.g., CLC of Biloxi, LLC v. Mississippi Div. of Medicaid, 189 So. 3d 726, 730 (Miss. 2016);
Urban Developers, LLC v. City of Jackson, 468 F. 3d 281, 294 (5th Cir. 2006); In re Wilborn,
590 So. 2d 1381, 1386 (Miss. 1991); Everitt v. Lovitt, 192 So. 2d 422, 427-428 (Miss. 1966).
22 Falls v. Jefferson Davis Co. Public School Bd., 95 So. 3d 1223, 1225 (Miss. 2012) (quoting
Gartrell v. Gartrell, 936 So. 2d 915, 916 (Miss. 2006)).

23 Id.
24 Amerigroup Motion at p.11, b.
25 Id. at c.
26 Thompson v. Anderson, 2017 WL 1148903 at *3, No. 3:16-cv-726 (S.D. Miss. March 27,
2017) (internal citations omitted).

27 Doc. 22.
6
Neither is there any real dispute about implementing the contracts and
submitting them to CMS. Even though the contracts are signed, they are not valid and
enforceable until approved by CMS.28 And the Division will not submit the contracts to
CMS for review and approval until after the Division issues a final decision on the
protests and after the PSCRB considers the contracts.
If Amerigroup and Mississippi True lose their protests and the PSCRB approves
the contracts, then they may appeal the final agency decision to this Court. In the
interim, there is no real dispute about how the process will work. The Court should
deny the Motions for lack of jurisdiction over the procedural claims as well.
II. Even if the Court had jurisdiction, it should still deny the Motions.
The Court should deny the Motion even if it had jurisdiction because (a)
Plaintiffs are improperly trying to obtain ultimate relief sought in the Complaints
through a preliminary injunction; and (b) there is no evidence whatsoever of threatened
irreparable harm.
A. Plaintiffs are not entitled to rescind the award and obtain a new
procurement with new representatives as a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs seek to require the Division to rescind the award and issue and new
procurement with new representatives. This is the ultimate relief that they seek in the
Complaints. That is, it is the relief they seek to obtain after a trial on the merits.
The law does not permit them to seek this ultimate relief in the form of a
preliminary injunction, particularly when there has been no discovery and less than two
weeks notice of the hearing. Mississippi law is clear that, if the injunction will have
the effect of granting to the complainant all the relief that the complainant could obtain
on a final hearing, then it should be denied except in the rarest of cases.29 If the Court
determines it has jurisdiction, it should summarily deny the Motion as seeking ultimate
relief only obtainable after a trial on the merits.
28RFP at 3.5, 3.6.

295 MS Prac. Encyclopedia of MS Law 38.5, citing Pearman v. Wiggins, 60 So. 1, 2 (Miss.
1912).
7
B. Plaintiffs have no evidence of imminent irreparable injury.
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to protect the plaintiff from

irreparable injury and to preserve the courts power to render a meaningful decision
after a trial on the merits.30 Plaintiffs here have not articulated any potentially
irreparable harm. They cannot. How can allowing the protest process to continue cause
irreparable harm when the Plaintiffs could still be awarded the contracts? How can
there be a real threat of irreparable harm during the process when the Division has
agreed to give Plaintiffs the time they are entitled to and to hold the contracts from
submission to CMS for approval until after the PSCRB rules? If the Court determines
that it has jurisdiction, it should still deny the Motion for lack of any threatened injury
that is imminent and irreparable.
CONCLUSION
The Court should deny the Motions for lack of jurisdiction. Amerigroup and
Mississippi True have not exhausted their administrative remedies because the Division
has not issued a final decision on their protests. They could still be awarded the
contracts. Moreover, their claims related to the protest process are moot. There is no
actual dispute as to the time they will have to submit a revised appeal or whether the
contracts are currently valid and enforceable.
Finally, even if the Court had jurisdiction, it should still deny the Motions.
Plaintiffs are trying to obtain their ultimate relief without any discovery or a trial on the
merits and without any evidence of irreparable harm.
The Court should deny the Motions and award any other relief it deems
appropriate.
30 Id.
8
Respectfully submitted this the 14th day of August, 2017.
/s/Kathryn R. Gilchrist
Kathryn R. Gilchrist (MSB #8946)
Everett White (MSB #101875)
GILCHRIST DONNELL PLLC
599B Steed Road
Ridgeland, MS 39157
(601) 790-2880 - Telephone
(601) 790-2900 - Fax
kgilchrist@gilchristdonnell.com
ewhite@gilchristdonnell.com
Attorneys for David J. Dzielak, Ph.D

in his Official Capacity as Executive
Director of the Division of Medicaid, Office of the
Governor, and the Division of Medicaid, Office of
the Governor, State of Mississippi.
9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 14, 2017 I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of the Court using the MEC system, which sent the notification to all counsel of
record.
/s/Kathryn R. Gilchrist
Kathryn R. Gilchrist
10
IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR THE

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI TRUE et al. PLAINTIFFS
V. CASE NO. G-2017-966 S/2
DAVID J. DZIELAK et al. DEFENDANTS
RESPONSE TO
(A) MISSISSIPPI TRUES MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT. # 5), AND (B) AMERIGROUP
MISSISSIPPI, INC.S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
EXPEDITED HEARING (DKT. # 20)
Molina Healthcare, Inc. and Molina Healthcare of Mississippi, Inc. (together, Molina)
le this response to (a) Mississippi Trues Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. # 5), and (b) Amerigroup Mississippi, Inc.s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and Expedited Hearing (Dkt. # 20) (together, the Motions).
1. Mississippi True and Amerigroups Motions are improper and untimely, as both
parties have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
2. It is hornbook law that a party exhaust [its] available administrative remedies
before seeking corrective action from a court. Jeffrey J. Jackson et al., Encyclopedia of
Mississippi Law, Vol. 1 2:84 (2d ed. 2015). See also Davis v. Barr, 157 So. 2d 505, 508 (Miss.
1963) (noting that the principal is textbook). No party to an administrative proceeding is
entitled to judicial relief until the agency itself has been given its statutory and rules-based
opportunity to complete its review of the matter. Jackson, supra at 2:84. This principal is
stated in quite absolute terms: a complainant must exhaust the administrative remedies available
to him before resorting to the courts for resolution of his dispute. Id. (citing State v. Beebe, 687
So. 2d 702, 704 (Miss. 1996)).

3. In disregard of that principal, Mississippi True and Amerigroup are litigating this
dispute on two simultaneous frontsboth administratively before the Division and the
Mississippi Personal Services Contract Review Board and judicially before this Court. And in
each venue, Mississippi True and Amerigroup are asserting the same claims and seeking the same
relief: Both parties are asking this Court, the Division, and the PSCRB to, among other things,
rescind the award of the MississippiCAN contract to the successful offerors and issue a new
request for proposals. (E.g. Amerigroup Mot., Dkt. 20 at 11.)
4. But as Mississippi True and Amerigroup are well aware, their protests are still
pending before the Division, and their protests and the award of the MississippiCAN contract
will thereafter be presented to the PSCRB for consideration. (E.g. Scheduling Order, Dkt. # 22 in
17-cv-000916 (setting for schedule for review by Division and PSCRB).) And until the Division
and the PSCRB have issued a nal decision, any request for judicial relief by a court of law is
prohibited.
5. Mississippi True and Amerigroups litigation strategy also violates the principal of
primary jurisdiction, which provides that, once a party has invoked administrative remedies, that
party is prohibited from simultaneously seeking judicial intervention:
[T]he courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question

which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal prior to the decision
of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,
experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and
intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the
purposes of the regulatory statute administered.
Alford v. Miss. Div. of Medicaid, 30 So. 3d 1212, 1221 (Miss. 2010) (citing Ill. Cent. R. Co. v.
M.T. Reed Const. Co., 51 So. 2d 573, 575 (Miss. 1951)).
2
6. Simply enough, Mississippi True and Amerigroup are playing by their own set of
procedural rules, which rules violate clearly established law. In doing so, Mississippi True and
Amerigroup are wasting this Courts time and resources by asking this Court for relief that this
Court cannot grant. Worse, these litigation tactics are delaying the continued implementation of
the Mississippi Coordinated Access Network, which delay will harm millions of Mississippi
citizens already enrolled, or seeking to enroll, in Medicaid.
7. Accordingly, this Court should deny the Motions.
For these reasons, Molina requests that this Court deny the Motions. Molina hereby
reserves the right to more fully answer and respond to the Complaints (Dkt. #s 2 and 19) led by
Mississippi True and Amerigroup, as well as the Motions, until after the Court rst determines
its jurisdiction in this matter under the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and
primary jurisdiction.
Dated: August 14, 2017.
Molina Healthcare, Inc., and

Molina Healthcare of Mississippi, Inc.
By: /s/ Timothy J. Anzenberger

C. Phillip Buffington, Jr. (MSB No. 7035)
Gordon U. Sanford, III (MSB No. 99233)
Timothy J. Anzenberger (MSB No. 103854)
Adams and Reese LLP
1018 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 800
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: 601.353.3234
Facsimile: 601.355.9708
phil.buffington@arlaw.com
sandy.sanford@arlaw.com
tim.anzenberger@arlaw.com
3
I hereby certify that on this day I electronically led the foregoing with the Clerk of the
Court using the MEC system, which sent notication of such ling to all counsel of record,
including the following:
George H. Ritter Mark N. Halbert

John P. Sneed PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
J. Lott Warren One Mississippi Plaza
WISE CARTER CHILD & CARAWAY, P.A. 201 South Spring Street, 7th Floor
401 East Capitol Street, Suite 600 Tupelo, MS 38804
Jackson, Mississippi 39201 mark.halbert@phelps.com
ghr@wisecarter.com
jps@wisecarter.com
jlw@wisecarter.com
Lynn Patton Thompson C. Lee Lott

BIGGS, INGRAM & SOLOP, PLLC PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
P.O. Box 14028 P.O. Box 16114
Jackson, MS 39236 Jackson, Mississippi 39236
lynn.thompson@bislawyers.com lee.lott@phelps.com
Paige Henderson Biglane John B. Howell, III

Office of the Attorney General Timothy L. Sensing
550 High Street, Suite 1000 WATKINS & EAGER PLLC
Jackson, MS 39201 400 E. Capitol Street, Suite 300
paige.biglane@medicaid.ms.gov Jackson, MS 39201
jhowell@watkinseager.com
tsensing@watkinseager.com
Charles G. Copeland Kathryn R. Gilchrist

Timothy J. Sterling Everett E. White
COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH, P.A. GILCHRIST DONNELL PLLC
P.O. Box 6020 599B Steed Road
Ridgeland, MS 39158 Ridgeland, MS 39157
gcopeland@cctb.com kgilchrist@gilchristdonnell.com
tsterling@cctb.com ewhite@gilchristdonnell.com
Dated: August 14, 2017.
/s/ Timothy J. Anzenberger

Of Counsel
4
IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MISSISSIPPI TRUE PLAINTIFF
vs CASE NO.: G 2017-966 S2
DAVID J. DZIELAK ET AL. DEFENDANTS
MOTION TO INTERVENE
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. D/B/A UNITEDHEALTHCARE
COMMUNITY PLAN OF MISSISSIPPI (UHC) files this Motion to Intervene (Motion)
under M.R.C.P. 24, requesting that this Court allow UHC to intervene as a party to oppose the relief
requested in Mississippi Trues (MT) Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction, Declaratory Judgement and other Relief (the Complaint, Dkt #2) and
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (the Motion for Injunctive
Relief, Dkt. #5). In support, UHC shows the following:
1. After the Mississippi Division of Medicaid awarded its Mississippi CAN contract to
other vendors, MT and Amerigroup Mississippi, Inc. (Amerigroup) both filed protests accusing
the Division of bias and discrimination.
2. Those protests - which are entirely meritless - are still pending before the Division
and UHC has filed responses to each protest with the Division.
3. Prior to exhausting its administrative remedies, MT filed in this action a Complaint
and Motion for Injunctive Relief in this Court, prematurely asking the Court to, among other things,
enjoin the Division from performing under the contract and declaring the award of the contract void.
AmeriGroup, like MT has filed a protest, and has moved to intervene in this action to seek the same
-1-
relief requested by MT. Neither MT nor AmeriGroup can show that required irreparable harm could
occur without the intervention of this Court in this cause.
4. Like the protests themselves, MTs Complaint and Motion for Injunctive Relief - as
well as the allegations in Amerigroups motion to Intervene - are without basis.
5. To protect its rights and interests in the contract award to it, UHC requests that this
Court allow UHC to intervene in this proceeding to oppose the relief sought by UHC and
Amerigroup.
6. M.R.C.P. 24(a) provides for intervention as of right. Under that Rule, anyone shall
be permitted to intervene where that person claims an interest relating to the property or
transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action
may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicants
interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
7. UHCs rights and interests in the performance of the MississippiCAN contract are
the very subject of this action. And MT - as well as Amerigroup - are asking the Court to enjoin
performance of that contract and, ultimately to declare the award of that contract void. The
disposition of the MT Complaint and Motion for Injunctive Relief will impair and impede UHCs
ability to protect its rights and interests in the contract. Indeed, disposition of this action in favor of
MT and Amerigroup will eviscerate UHCs rights and interests in the contract.
8. UHCs interests are not adequately protected by any other party to this proceeding.
In their protests, both MT and AmeriGroup have asserted that UHC made inaccurate representations
and that UHC was given more points than appropriate in the evaluation of the proposals. UHC is
in the best position to rebut these allegations on UHCs behalf. MT and AmeriGroup are challenging
-2-
the awarding of a contract to UHC, and UHC should be allowed to respond by intervention.
9. If UHC is not allowed to intervene as of right, this Court should - alternatively - allow
UHC to intervene under M.R.C.P. 24(b), which provides for permissive intervention. Under that
Rule, anyone may be permitted to intervene where the persons claim or defense and the main
action have a question of law or fact in common.
10. Both this action, and the administrative proceeding for the protests of MT and
Amerigroup, share the same questions of law and fact (i.e. whether the Division properly award the
contract). In addition, UHCs claims and defenses in the administrative proceeding involve the same
questions of law and fact as this action. Accordingly, UHC is - at the very least - entitled to
permissive intervention under M.R.C.P. 24(b).
11. UHCs proposed response to Motion for Injunctive Relief is attached hereto as
Exhibit A in accordance with M.R.C.P. 24(c). UHCs answer to the Complaint will be filed in a
timely manner if UHC is allowed to intervene in this matter.
FOR THESE REASONS, UHC requests that this Court grant this Motion and allow UHC
to intervene in this case and oppose the relief sought in the Complaint and Motion for Injunctive
Relief.
This the 21st day of July, 2017.
Respectfully submitted
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF MISSISSIPPI, INC.,

D/B/A UNITEDHEALTHCARE COMMUNITY
PLAN OF MISSISSIPPI
By:____/s/ Timothy J. Sterling______________

Charles G. Copeland, Esq. (MSB #6516)
Timothy J. Sterling, Esq. (MSB #103063)
-3-
OF COUNSEL:
Charles G. Copeland, Esq. (MSB #6516)

gcopeland@cctb.com
Timothy J. Sterling, Esq. (MSB #103063)
tsterling@cctb.con
COPELAND COOK TAYLOR & BUSH, P.A.
1076 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 100 (39157)
Post Office Box 6020
Ridgeland, Mississippi 39158
Telephone: 601-856-7200
Facsimile: 6011-856-7626
I, Timothy J. Sterling, do hereby certify that I have this day filed the above and foregoing
Motion through the Courts ECF Filing System thereby serving a copy of said Motion upon all
parties of record.
This the 21st day of July, 2017.
____/s/ Timothy J. Sterling________________

Timothy J. Sterling
-4-
IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI TRUE PLAINTIFFS
VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. G17-966 S/2
DAVID J. DZIELAK, PH.D., IN HIS OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE DIVISION OF MEDICAID, OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR; AND THE DIVISION
OF MEDICAID, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff Mississippi True, pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. P. 65(b), moves this Court for a
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction against Defendants David J. Dzielak,
Ph.D., in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Division of Medicaid, Office of the
Governor (Dzielak), and the Division of Medicaid, Office of the Governor, State of
Mississippi (DOM), collectively Defendants, ordering that Defendants
(a) provide Mississippi True a reasonable amount of time as determined by the Court,
but in no event less than seven (7) working days after the production of the
competitive sealed proposals that have been requested by Mississippi True, in
which to supplement and complete its Protest of the intended award of contracts
pursuant to RFP #20170203 (the MississippiCAN contracts), as required by
Miss. Code Ann. 25-61-5;
(b) submit the MississippiCAN contracts to and obtain approval from the Mississippi
Personal Service Contract Review Board (PSCRB), as required by Miss. Code
Ann. 25-9-120, the PSCRB regulations, and the terms of RFP #20170203; and
(c) not execute or implement the MississippiCAN contracts until Defendants have
fully complied with (a) and (b) above and Mississippi True has been allowed to
pursue all necessary judicial appeal rights as provided in MS ADC 27-1:5-
201(a).
In support of this motion, Mississippi True shows to the Court the following:
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
On February 3, 2017, DOM issued RFP #20170203 seeking proposals from managed
care or coordinated care companies to serve as contractors for the MississippiCAN program.
Compl., Ex. A. 1 The MississippiCAN program is DOMs managed care program for Medicaid
beneficiaries and expends over $3 billion annually in state and federal funds. This money is paid
to the MississippiCAN contractors as a premium calculated on a per member per month basis.
On information and belief, RFP#20170203 represents the largest service contract procurement by
any Mississippi governmental agency. On or about April 7, 2017, Mississippi True timely
submitted a proposal in response to RFP #20170203 that complied in all particulars with the RFP
including the required $500,000.00 bond. By letter from Defendant Dzielak, dated June 15,
2017, Mississippi True was advised that its Proposal had been rejected and that a contract would
be awarded to three offerors other than Mississippi True, namely United, Magnolia Health, and
Molina Healthcare of Mississippi, Inc. Compl., Ex. B.
RFP #20170203 gives unsuccessful offerors the express right to protest a notice of non-
award within ten days of receipt of the notice. A protest must be accompanied by a $500,000
protest bond and state the specific grounds for the protest. Compl., Ex., A, at 34. Acceptable
grounds for a protest include:
Failure to follow any of the following: 1) the Division procedures

established in the RFP or 2) the Division rules of procurement;
Errors in computing scores which contributed to the selection of an
Offeror other than the best proposal; or,
Bias, discrimination, or conflict of interest on the part of an evaluator.
Id., at 36. Section 25-61-5 of the Mississippi Public Records Act gives unsuccessful offerors
1
All except those referenced as Motion Ex. _____ are attached to the Complaint.
who submit a public records request for the competitive sealed proposals a reasonable amount
of time, but in no event less than seven (7) working days after the production of the competitive
sealed proposals, to protest the procurement or intended award prior to contract execution.
Miss. Code Ann. 25-61-5(b). Mississippi True submitted a public records request to DOM for
the competitive sealed bids on June 26, 2017, and has not received the requested proposals from
Defendants. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, on June 29, 2017, Mississippi True
timely filed its Protest of RFP #20170203. Compl., Ex. C. Mississippi True simultaneously
delivered to Defendants the required $500,000 bond. Motion Ex. A.
In its Protest, Mississippi True presented evidence that Mississippi Trues scores were the
product of bias and discrimination against Mississippi True because of its status as a PSHP,
coupled with errors in computing its score, both of which contributed to selection of contractors
that did not submit the best proposals. Mississippi Trues Protest includes evidence of specific
scores that were reduced based solely on its status as a PSHP. The difference in Mississippi
Trues score and the score of the lowest successful offeror was only 4.55 points. Mississippi
True established that had its score been free from scoring bias and discrimination, its score
would have increased by greater than 4.55 points and it would have been awarded one of the
contracts. The evidence presented in the Protest shows that the contract award decisions were
arbitrary, capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, and contrary to the clear letter and
intent of the Mississippi Legislature expressed in the PSHP statute. Mississippi True, therefore,
asserted that its score should be increased and it should be awarded one of the MississippiCAN
contracts. Alternatively, it requested that none of the contracts be awarded and that the contracts
be re-procured. The Protest expressly advised DOM that Mississippi True intends to supplement
its Protest after DOM produces the documents responsive to Mississippi Trues public records
requests. Mississippi True has received no decision on its Protest.
On July 7, 2017, without making any determination on Mississippi Trues Protest and
prior to producing the sealed competitive bids or any other requested public records, DOM
through its staff attorney, Paige Biglane, Esq., emailed Mississippi Trues attorney informing
Mississippi True that DOM (a) will not submit the contracts to the PSCRB for approval, (b) will
not afford Mississippi True any appeal rights, and (c) will move forward with contract
execution unless ordered to do otherwise by a court. Compl., Ex. D. This email clearly shows
that DOM has no intent to comply with state law or its own procedures and deprives Mississippi
True of any opportunity to challenge the contract award.
If the MississippiCAN contracts are executed as stated by DOM in Biglanes email,
Mississippi True will be deprived of its statutory and regulatory right to pursue its protest
through the PSCRB and appeal to this Court, if necessary. Defendants actions thus threaten to
severely and irreparably harm Mississippi True. In further support of this Motion, Mississippi
True submits the affidavit of Mark Rishell. Motion Ex. B.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Under Mississippi law, a party may obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction by showing the following:
(1) [whether] there exists a substantial likelihood that [the] plaintiff will
prevail on the merits; (2) [whether] the injunction is necessary to prevent
irreparable harm; (3) [whether] the threatened harm to the applicant
outweighs the harm the injunction might do to the respondents; and (4)
[whether] entry of the injunction is consistent with the public interest.
Sec'y of State v. Gunn, 75 So.3d 1015, 1020 ( 14) (Miss.2011) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted); Lauderdale v. DeSoto Co. ex rel. Bd. Of Supervisors, 196 So. 3d 1091, 1099
(Miss. 2016). The movant has the burden of establish these factors by a preponderance of the
evidence. Lauderdale, at 1099. However, [a] court may issue a TRO or
preliminary injunction even though a plaintiff's right to relief on the merits remains uncertain.
Id., citing, Gunn, 75 So.3d at 1021 ( 17). Mississippi True has more than adequately met this
standard.
1. Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Mississippi True is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of its claims. First, the
law is crystal clear that an unsuccessful offeror that requests the competitive sealed bids is
entitled to at least seven days after receipt thereof in which to file its protest. Section 25-61-5 of
the Mississippi Public Records Act provides in pertinent part:
Persons making a request for production of competitive sealed proposals after the notice
of intent to award is issued by the public body shall have a reasonable amount of time,
but in no event less than seven (7) working days after the production of the competitive
sealed proposals, to protest the procurement or intended award prior to contract
execution.
Miss. Code Ann. 25-61-5(1)(b). Mississippi True has requested but not yet received the
competitive sealed proposals. This request is the subject of a separate action filed by one of the
successful bidders seeking to protect the contents of its proposal. See In Re: UnitedHealthcare
of Mississippi, Inc., d/b/a UnitedHealthcare Community Plan of Mississippi Protective Order,
cause no. G-2017-916 S/2, in the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, First Judicial
District. Until that matter is resolved and Mississippi True is afforded a reasonable time not less
than seven days after receipt of the competitive sealed proposals, Mississippi Trues time for
protesting the award has not expired.
DOM thus cannot lawfully decide Mississippi Trues protest until Mississippi True is
afforded a reasonable opportunity to receive and review the competitive sealed proposals and to
supplement its protest. The sealed competitive proposals and other public records requested by
Mississippi True are absolutely necessary to perfect its protest. Paige Biglanes July 7 email
shows that Defendants intend to violate (or have already violated) their obligations under 25-
61-5(1)(b) and the terms of the RFP.
Second, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. 25-9-120, subject to certain limited and
inapplicable exceptions, the PSCRB has the authority and responsibility to [a]pprove all
personal and professional services contracts involving the expenditures of funds in excess of
Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). The MississippiCAN contracts involve
professional services expenditures of funds in excess of $3 billion. Thus, DOM is clearly
required to submit the proposed contracts to the PSCRB for its approval. Its refusal to do so is a
clear violation of Section 25-9-120.
RFP #20170203 expressly provides that the procurement process is guided by
appropriate provisions of the Personal Service Contract Review Board Rules and Regulations
which are available for inspection at 210 East Capitol Street, Suite 800, Jackson, Mississippi or
downloadable at www.mspb.ms.gov. These PSCRB regulations also provide that the PSCRB
has the power and responsibility to [a]pprove all personal and professional services contracts
involving the expenditures of funds in excess of Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00).
PSCRB Rules & Regs, Rule 2-103, at p. 11. DOM is specifically listed as a state agency under
the purview of the PSCRB. PSCRB Rules & Regs., App. A, at p. 131. Thus, DOM is required
by its own RFP and the PSCRB regulations incorporated by the RFP to submit the proposed
contracts to the PSCRB for its approval prior to execution of those contracts. Failure to do so is
a clear violation of the terms and provisions of the RFP as well as PSCRB regulations
incorporated by the RFP.
DOMs position (stated in Ms. Biglanes email) that PSCRB approval is not required
because the MississippiCAN contracts are insurance contracts is also contrary to Mississippi
law. Miss. Code Ann. 43-13-123 provides as follows:
The determination of the method of providing payment of claims under this article
shall be made by the division, with approval of the Governor, which methods may
be:
(a) By contract with insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of

Mississippi or with nonprofit hospital service corporations, medical or dental
service corporations, authorized to do business in Mississippi to underwrite on an
insured premium approach, such medical assistance benefits as may be available,
and any carrier selected under the provisions of this article is expressly authorized
and empowered to undertake the performance of the requirements of that contract.
(b) By contract with an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of

Mississippi or with nonprofit hospital service, medical or dental service
organizations, or other organizations including data processing companies,
authorized to do business in Mississippi to act as fiscal agent.
The division shall obtain services to be provided under either of the above-
described provisions in accordance with the Personal Service Contract Review
Board Procurement Regulations.
The authorization of the foregoing methods shall not preclude other methods of
providing payment of claims through direct operation of the program by the state
or its agencies.
(Emphasis added). Without conceding that this statute applies to the MississippiCAN contracts
at all, it unambiguously requires both approval by the Governor and compliance with PSCRB
regulations. The Governor has not approved the contract awards, and the PSCRB regulations as
explained above require approval by the PSCRB. Thus, Defendants have failed to satisfy the
conditions of section 43-13-123. Defendants argument is unavailing.
Third, PSCRB regulations give an unsuccessful bidder the right to appeal an adverse
decision by the PSCRB to an appropriate court. Miss. Admin. Code 27-1:5-201(a). Thus, if the
Mississippi True receives an adverse decision from the PSCRB, it is entitled to appeal that
decision to court. Defendants decision to disregard the required protest and PSCRB approval
and move straight to contract execution deprives Mississippi True of this right. This is a clear
violation of the law established in Miss. Admin. Code 27-1:5-201(a).
2. Irreparable Harm
Mississippi True is prepared to prove that it was denied one of the Mississippi True
contract based solely on objectively erroneous scoring coupled with Defendants bias and
discrimination against Mississippi True as a PSHP. Defendants have shown overt bias against
Medicaid providers and favoritism toward out of state for-profit companies in disregard of the
Legislatures intent that a PSHP serve as one of the MississippiCAN contracts. This intent was
expressed clearly by the Legislature when it declared that the authorization and development of
provider-sponsored health plans as defined in Section 83-5-603 are vital to the continued
delivery and improvement of health care in this state and otherwise in the best interests of the
state and its citizens, Miss. Code Ann. 83-5-601 (emphasis added), and that [a]t least one (1)
purpose of the provider-sponsored health plan shall be to contract with the Division of Medicaid
to provide managed care services on a capitated basis pursuant to Section 43-13-117(H). Id.,
83-5-603 (emphasis added).
However, because Defendants have ignored the required protest and appeal procedure,
Mississippi True has been deprived of any opportunity to prove its case. 2 Thus, Defendants
actions irreparably deprive Mississippi True of its right to protest after receipt of the requested
competitive sealed bids, the right to challenge the non-award before the PSCRB, and the right to
judicially appeal the PSCRB decision if it remains adverse to Mississippi True. This Court must
enter the requested TRO and preliminary injunction in order to prevent this unlawful conduct and
2
Mississippi True is not asking the Court at this time to determine the ultimate issue of whether
Mississippi True should be granted one of the MississippiCAN contracts. That issue should be decided
later after the proper procedures are followed. At this time, Mississippi True asks only that the Court
enjoin Defendants to follow the established statutory and regulatory procedures for resolving a protest of
a state agency contract award.
avoid immediate and irreparable harm to Mississippi True.
3. The Potential Injury to Plaintiff Outweighs the Potential Injury to

Defendants
The threatened injury to Plaintiff far outweighs any potential injury to the Defendants.
Mississippi True will be clearly and severely injured because it will be denied a MississippiCAN
contract without any right to protest and otherwise challenge the contract awards, contrary to the
clear intent of the Mississippi Legislature expressed in Sections 83-5-601, et seq. The rights
provided to Mississippi True to protest the award and to appeal any adverse decision by the
PSCRB are meaningless once the contracts are executed.
Conversely, granting the requested injunctive relief will cause no injury to Defendants as
they will merely have to follow the proper procedures and applicable law for processing
Mississippi Trues Protest and approving the contract. 3 (Indeed, one wonders why the
Defendants are so anxious to avoid having their decision reviewed by another agency or a court.)
Even if this results in a minor delay in implementation of the contracts, any such delay will cause
Defendants no harm because Medicaid services will continue to be provided under the current
MississippiCAN contracts.
4. No Adequate Remedy at Law
Mississippi True does not have an adequate remedy at law. If the preliminary injunction
is not granted, the MississippiCAN contracts will be executed before MississippiCAN is
afforded and exercises its administrative and judicial appeal rights. The bell cannot be un-rung.
Mississippi True will have no breach of contract claim because it has not been awarded one of
the contracts. Also, as recognized by the Mississippi Supreme Court, under normal
3
Granting this motion will actually protect Defendants from potential harm because they may be held
personally liable under Miss. Code Ann. 31-7-57 if they authorize an award of a contract in violation of
law. See 27 Miss. Admin. Code 1:3-101.03.
circumstances, an unsuccessful bidder should seek a court order requiring a public agency to
follow the established RFP procedures before seeking compensatory damages. See, e.g., City of
Durant v. Laws Constr. Co., Inc., 721 So. 2d 598, at 28 (Miss. 1998).
5. Serving the Public Interest
Granting the requested injunctive relief serves the public interest by, among other things,
enforcing the policies stated in Mississippi Code Section 25-9-120, Section 25-61-5(1)(b), as
well as Sections 83-5-603, -605, -607, Section 25-9-120, Section 25-61-5(1)(b), and other
applicable statutes and regulations discussed herein. Further, granting the requested injunction
ensures that Defendants fulfill their obligations to administer the Mississippi Medicaid program
as required by state law. The public interest is never served by condoning the violation of valid
statutes and regulations by state agencies and the officials appointed to run them.
6. Bond Posted
Mississippi True has already posted a $500,000 bond with DOM as a condition to filing
its Protest. Motion Ex. A. This bond more than adequately satisfies the requirement of security
under Miss. R. Civ. P. 65(c). Mississippi True requests the Court to relieve Mississippi True of
any obligation to post additional security.
7. Notice to Defendants
Mississippi True hereby gives notice by service upon the Honorable Jim Hood, Attorney
General, and Paige Biglane, Esq., Special Assistant Attorney General assigned to DOM, that it
will bring this motion for hearing as soon as counsel may be hear.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons state above and in the complaint, Mississippi True respectfully requests
that this Court enter a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction ordering and
directing that Defendants to:
(a) provide Mississippi True a reasonable amount of time as determined by the Court,
but in no event less than seven (7) working days after the production of the
competitive sealed proposals that have been requested by Mississippi True, in
which to supplement and complete its Protest of the intended award of contracts
pursuant to RFP #20170203 (the MississippiCAN contracts), as required by
Miss. Code Ann. 25-61-5;
(b) submit the MississippiCAN contracts to and obtain approval from the Mississippi
Personal Service Contract Review Board (PSCRB), as required by Miss. Code
Ann. 25-9-120, the PSCRB regulations, and the terms of RFP #20170203; and
(c) not execute or implement the MississippiCAN contracts until Defendants have
fully complied with (a) and (b) above and Mississippi True has been allowed to
pursue all necessary judicial appeal rights as provided in MS ADC 27-1:5-
201(a).
This the 13th day of July, 2017.
Respectfully submitted,
MISSISSIPPI TRUE, PLAINTIFF
BY: /s/ George H. Ritter

GEORGE H. RITTER (MSB #5372)
JOHN P. SNEED (MSB# 7652)
J. LOTT WARREN (MSB #104796)
OF COUNSEL:
WISE CARTER CHILD & CARAWAY, P.A.
401 East Capitol Street, Suite 600
Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Post Office Box 651
(P): 601-968-5500
(F): 601-944-7738
I, GEORGE H. RITTER, do hereby certify that I have this day caused to be served via
hand-delivery and the MEC a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document to:
Hon. Jim Hood

Attorney General, State of Mississippi
Walter Sillers Building
550 High Street, Twelfth Floor
Post Office Box 220
Jackson, Mississippi 39205-0220
THIS the 13th day of July, 2017.
/s/ George H. Ritter

GEORGE H. RITTER

Lawsuit Mississippi True File #2

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Lawsuit Mississippi True File #2

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000966 Document #: 34 Filed: 08/10/2017 Page 1 of 2

Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000966 Document #: 34 Filed: 08/10/2017 Page 2 of 2

IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MISSISSIPPI TRUE PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. G-2017-966 S/2

DAVID J. DZIELAK, Ph.D., et al. DEFENDANTS

RESPONSE TO MISSISSIPPI TRUES AND AMERIGROUP MISSISSIPPI, INC.S

Amerigroup and Mississippi True seek to unwind the MississippiCAN

The Division released Request for Proposal 20170203 (RFP) for

A. Amerigroup and Mississippi True have not exhausted their

It is well-settled that a party must exhaust available administrative remedies

11 In re Wilborn, 590 So. 2d 1381, 1386 (Miss. 1991).

The Mississippi Supreme Courts decision in Tupelo Industries15 is controlling.

equitable relief to Tupelo Industries when an adequate statutory remedy was

B. Plaintiffs claims regarding the protest process are moot.

Claims are moot if a judgment would be of no practical benefit to the plaintiff or

Gartrell v. Gartrell, 936 So. 2d 915, 916 (Miss. 2006)).

2017) (internal citations omitted).

28RFP at 3.5, 3.6.

B. Plaintiffs have no evidence of imminent irreparable injury.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to protect the plaintiff from

Respectfully submitted this the 14th day of August, 2017.

Attorneys for David J. Dzielak, Ph.D

IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR THE

MISSISSIPPI TRUE et al. PLAINTIFFS

V. CASE NO. G-2017-966 S/2

DAVID J. DZIELAK et al. DEFENDANTS

Injunction and Expedited Hearing (Dkt. # 20) (together, the Motions).

parties have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.

2. It is hornbook law that a party exhaust [its] available administrative remedies

1963) (noting that the principal is textbook). No party to an administrative proceeding is

So. 2d 702, 704 (Miss. 1996)).

request for proposals. (E.g. Amerigroup Mot., Dkt. 20 at 11.)

party is prohibited from simultaneously seeking judicial intervention:

[T]he courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question

M.T. Reed Const. Co., 51 So. 2d 573, 575 (Miss. 1951)).

citizens already enrolled, or seeking to enroll, in Medicaid.

7. Accordingly, this Court should deny the Motions.

Dated: August 14, 2017.

Molina Healthcare, Inc., and

By: /s/ Timothy J. Anzenberger

George H. Ritter Mark N. Halbert

Lynn Patton Thompson C. Lee Lott

Paige Henderson Biglane John B. Howell, III

Charles G. Copeland Kathryn R. Gilchrist

Dated: August 14, 2017.

/s/ Timothy J. Anzenberger

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

MISSISSIPPI TRUE PLAINTIFF

vs CASE NO.: G 2017-966 S2

DAVID J. DZIELAK ET AL. DEFENDANTS

UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. D/B/A UNITEDHEALTHCARE

COMMUNITY PLAN OF MISSISSIPPI (UHC) files this Motion to Intervene (Motion)

Relief, Dkt. #5). In support, UHC shows the following:

the Division of bias and discrimination.

3. Prior to exhausting its administrative remedies, MT filed in this action a Complaint

occur without the intervention of this Court in this cause.

well as the allegations in Amerigroups motion to Intervene - are without basis.

interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

action have a question of law or fact in common.

permissive intervention under M.R.C.P. 24(b).

timely manner if UHC is allowed to intervene in this matter.

This the 21st day of July, 2017.

UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF MISSISSIPPI, INC.,

By:/s/ Timothy J. Sterling__________

/s/ Timothy J. Sterling____________