Glenn Romero, Juan Gonzalez, Ricardo Benavides and Romero, Gonzalez & Benavides, L. L. P. v. Zacharias Gonzalez ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                              NUMBER 13-16-00172-CV
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
    GLENN ROMERO, JUAN GONZALEZ,
    RICARDO BENAVIDES AND ROMERO,
    GONZALEZ & BENAVIDES, L. L. P.,                                             Appellants,
    v.
    ZACHARIAS GONZALEZ,                                                           Appellee.
    On appeal from the 93rd District Court
    of Hidalgo County, Texas
    ORDER ABATING APPEAL
    Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
    Order Per Curiam
    On April 4, 2016, appellants, Glenn Romero, Juan Gonzalez, Ricardo Benavides,
    and Romero, Gonzalez & Benavides, L.L.P. filed a petition for permission to appeal from
    the 93rd Judicial District Court’s denial of their motion to dismiss. In the certificate of
    service, appellants certified that they had served Mark Cantu as attorney for appellee,
    Zacharias Gonzalez. In their docketing statement, appellants indicated that Mark Cantu,
    State Bar Number “23767445,”1 had been disbarred as of April 11, 2016. On June 22,
    2016, Mark A. Cantu III, state bar number “03767445,” filed a notice of appeal challenging
    the trial court’s judgment of disbarment signed on April 11, 2016. Cantu then filed a
    motion to stay the disbarment with our Court. On July 14, 2016, this Court denied the
    motion stating the following:
    “A district court judgment of disbarment . . . from the practice of law cannot
    be superseded or stayed.” TEX. R. DISCIPLINARY P. 3.14. We treat
    disciplinary rules with the same authority as statutes. See O’Quinn v. State
    Bar of Tex., 
    763 S.W.2d 397
    , 399 (Tex. 1988). In his motion, Cantu argues
    exactly for the type of relief that Rule 3.14 expressly and unambiguously
    prohibits. Therefore, the Court, having examined and fully considered the
    motion for emergency relief and response, is of the opinion that the motion
    should be denied.
    Given the foregoing, we ABATE this matter and REMAND it to the trial court in
    order for the trial court to consider whether appellee wishes to retain other counsel. The
    trial court is ordered to immediately cause notice to be given and conduct a hearing on
    this matter.     The trial court shall make and file appropriate findings of fact and
    conclusions of law and cause them to be included in a clerk’s record; cause the hearing
    to be transcribed and included in a reporter’s record; and have these records forwarded
    to the Clerk of this Court within thirty days from the date of this order. If the trial court
    requires additional time to comply, the trial court should so notify the Clerk of this Court.
    1  We find no other Mark Cantu at the State Bar of Texas website, and it appears that appellants
    incorrectly indicated that Mark Cantu’s state bar number begins with a “2” instead of “0.”
    2
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    PER CURIAM
    Delivered and filed the
    1st day of Novemberpe, 2016.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-16-00172-CV

Filed Date: 11/1/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/2/2016