Order issued December 20 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 7
- 0 0 9 18
- C V

——————————— ZSOLT PETKO AND ZSUZSANNA ADAM , Appella nt s V. CARELTON C O URTYARD , Appell e e

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV
- 0077741

MEMORANDUM ORDER Currently p ending before this Court is appellant s Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna
Adam ’s second pro se “ Motion t o Recus e Judges” seeking to recuse the panel justices who issued the November 29 , 2018 Order on Motion s
.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.
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 16.3(b). When, as in this case, a party challenges the members of the panel , the M otion

to R ecuse 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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. 0 1

- 1 7

- 00 690

- CV, (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 1 9 , 201 7 , 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 appellant s ’ Motion to R ecus e Judges and prior to any further proceedings in this appeal, e ach of the challenged panel justices
of this Court considered the M otion in chambers. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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
T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 r emaining participating justices en banc.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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
fin ding no basis for recusal, the M otion to R ecuse 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 appellant s ’ pro se Motion t o Recus e Judges requests recusal of Justice Jennings, it is ordered that the M otion to R ecuse Judges is denied

.The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland, Massengale,

Brown, L loyd , 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 M otion to R ecuse Judges is denied

. The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Ju stices 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 C ourt consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland, Massengale, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey.
PER CURIAM