Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam v. Carelton Courtyard ( 2018 )

Order issued December 20, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-17-00918-CV
———————————
ZSOLT PETKO AND ZSUZSANNA ADAM, Appellants
V.
CARELTON COURTYARD, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CV-0077741
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Currently pending before this Court is appellants Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna
Adam’s second pro se “Motion to Recuse Judges” seeking to recuse the panel
justices who issued the November 29, 2018 Order on Motions.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 16.3 prescribes the procedure to be
followed for recusal of an appellate justice:
Before any further proceeding in the case, the challenged justice or
judge must either remove himself or herself from all participation in
the case or certify the matter to the entire court, which will decide
the motion by a majority of the remaining judges sitting en banc. The
challenged justice or judge must not sit with the remainder of the court
to consider the motion as to him or her.
TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b).
When, as in this case, a party challenges the members of the panel, the Motion
to Recuse Judges is first sent to the panel and then, if the panel does not recuse, the
Motion is certified and decided by the remaining en banc court under the procedures
set forth in Rule 16.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b); see, e.g., Cameron v. Greenhill,
582 S.W.2d 775, 775–77 (Tex. 1979) (denying motion to disqualify entire Texas
Supreme Court); Thomas Florence v. Robbie L. Guarnelo, No. 01-17-00690-CV,
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2017, mem. order) (per curiam) (treating
recusal motion as addressed to entire Court); Cogsdil v. Jimmy Fincher Body Shop,
LLC, No. 07-16-00303-CV, 2016 WL 7321788, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec.
12, 2016, order) (same).
Accordingly, upon the filing of appellants’ Motion to Recuse Judges and
prior to any further proceedings in this appeal, each of the challenged panel justices
of this Court considered the Motion in chambers. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b); see
also Cogsdil, 2016 WL 7321788, at *1; Cannon v. City of Hurst, 180 S.W.3d 600,
601 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, order). Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Higley
each found no reason to recuse themselves and certified the matter to the remaining
members of the en banc court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b); Cogsdil, 2016 WL
7321788, at *1; Cannon, 180 S.W.3d at 601.
This Court then followed the accepted procedure set out in Rule 16.3. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b); Cannon, 180 S.W.3d at 601. The remaining justices
deliberated and decided the Motion to Recuse Judges with respect to each
challenged panel justice by a vote of the remaining participating justices en banc.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b); Cogsdil, 2016 WL 7321788, at *1; Cannon, 180
S.W.3d at 601. No challenged panel justice sat with the other members of the Court
when his or her challenge was considered. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b); Manges v.
Guerra, 673 S.W.2d 180, 185 (Tex. 1984); Cogsdil, 2016 WL 7321788, at *1;
McCullough v. Kitzman, 50 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, order).
Having considered the motion as to each challenged panel justice, and
finding no basis for recusal, the Motion to Recuse Judges is denied with respect to
each challenged panel justice. See Manges, 673 S.W.2d at 185; McCullough, 50
S.W.3d at 89. The Court enters the following orders:
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE JENNINGS
To the extent that appellants’ pro se Motion to Recuse Judges requests recusal
of Justice Jennings, it is ordered that the Motion to Recuse Judges is denied.
The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland, Massengale,
Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey.
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE KEYES
To the extent that appellants’ pro se Motion to Recuse Judges requests recusal
of Justice Keyes, it is ordered that the Motion to Recuse Judges is denied.
The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland, Massengale,
Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey.
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE HIGLEY
To the extent that appellants’ pro se Motion to Recuse Judges requests recusal
of Justice Higley, it is ordered that the Motion to Recuse Judges is denied.
The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland, Massengale,
Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey.
PER CURIAM