Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Zenger. Opinion by Recktenwald, C.J., Concurring in Part [ada].

NUMBER 13-25-00278-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE CMG3, LLC D/B/A USA FOUNDATION REPAIR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1 By petition for writ of mandamus, relator CMG3, LLC d/b/a USA Foundation Repair contends that the trial court abused its discretion by disqualifying its counsel of record, Stephen P. Carrigan and Carrigan & Anderson, PLLC, in the underlying personal injury lawsuit. 2 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). 2 This petition for writ of mandamus arises from trial court cause number 2022CCV-61423-3 in the County Court at Law No. 3 of Nueces County, Texas. Relator filed a related appeal from this same trial court proceeding which is docketed in our appellate cause number 13-25-00248-CV. By separate  Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). When a trial court abuses its discretion by granting a motion to disqualify counsel, appeal is an inadequate remedy. In re Murrin Bros. 1885, Ltd., 603 S.W.3d 53, 57 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding); In re Turner, 542 S.W.3d 553, 555 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Guar. Ins. Servs., Inc., 343 S.W.3d 130, 132 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Cerberus Cap. Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 383 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Sanders, 153 S.W.3d 54, 56 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); NCNB Tex. Nat’l Bank v. Coker, 765 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex. 1989) (orig. proceeding). Consequently, the “pertinent inquiry” in such cases is whether the trial court abused its discretion by disqualifying counsel. See In re Nitla S.A. de C.V., 92 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by real party in interest Ismael Perez, the record provided, and the memorandum opinion issued on this same day, we have dismissed that appeal for want of jurisdiction. See CMG3, LLC v. USA Found. Repair v. Perez, No. 13-25-00248-CV, 2025 WL _____, at *__ (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi–Edinburg June __, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). 2 applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to obtain relief. See In re Turner, 542 S.W.3d at 555–58. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. JENNY CRON Justice Delivered and filed on the 23rd day of June, 2025. 3

NUMBER 13-25-00248-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG CMG3, LLC D/B/A USA FOUNDATION REPAIR, Appellant, v. ISMAEL PEREZ, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron Appellant CMG3, LLC d/b/a USA Foundation Repair filed a notice of appeal from an order signed on April 30, 2025, denying reconsideration of an order disqualifying its counsel of record, Stephen P. Carrigan and Carrigan & Anderson, PLLC. On May 8, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment, directed appellant to correct this defect, if possible, and advised appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. In response, appellant advised the Court that it would be filing a petition for writ of mandamus “to challenge the trial court’s order [at issue] in this appeal.” 1 Appellant did not otherwise correct the defect identified in the Clerk’s letter. See id. “Usually, only final judgments are subject to appeal.” Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 540 S.W.3d 577, 581 (Tex. 2018) (per curiam). Absent a timely filed notice of appeal from a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, we do not have jurisdiction over an appeal. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An order disqualifying counsel is interlocutory in nature, and there is no statute providing for an interlocutory appeal of such an order. See, e.g., In re RSR Corp., 475 S.W.3d 775, 778 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding) (“A party whose counsel is improperly disqualified has no adequate remedy by appeal.”); see also In re Guardianship of Bernsen, No. 13-20-00523-CV, 2021 WL 727391, at *1 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 25, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing an appeal from an order disqualifying counsel for want of jurisdiction). Further, an order denying rehearing or reconsideration is not an independently appealable order. See State Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Berdan, 335 S.W.3d 421, 428 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2011, pet. denied); Digges v. Knowledge All., Inc., 176 S.W.3d 463, 464 (Tex. App.— 1 Appellant subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus in our appellate cause number 13- 25-00278-CV challenging the trial court’s original order disqualifying appellant’s counsel of record. By separate memorandum opinion issued on this same date, this Court denied relief in that cause. See In re CMG3, LLC, No. 13-25-00278-CV, 2025 WL ____, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June __, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 2 Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.); see also Martin v. Estell Acres, LLC, No. 03-23-00638- CV, 2023 WL 8355329, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 1, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). The Court, having considered and fully considered the documents herein, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). JENNY CRON Justice Delivered and filed on the 23rd day of June, 2025. 3