In Re Roberto Rojas, the Dick Law Firm, PLLC and Joseph F. Radler, III v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued August 26, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-25-00479-CV
———————————
IN RE ROBERTO ROJAS, THE DICK LAW FIRM, PLLC, AND JOSEPH
F. RADLER, III, Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators Roberto Rojas, The Dick Law Firm, PLLC, and Joseph F. Radler, III have

filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s June 23, 2025 order

setting a show cause hearing concerning nonpayment of sanctions.1 Relators have

also filed a motion to stay the hearing, set for July 2, 2025. On July 11, 2025, relators

1
The underlying case is Roberto Rojas v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, cause number 1143116, pending in the County Civil Court at Law No. 3
of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable LaShawn Williams.
filed an amended petition for writ of mandamus, adding additional arguments

supporting their claims that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the June

23, 2025 order and that the June 23, 2025 order is void.

The June 23, 2025 order sets a show cause hearing concerning the failure to

comply with prior sanctions orders that impose sanctions only against relator Joseph

R. Radler, III and that do not expressly concern the other two relators. However, the

amended final judgment also contains a section concerning the reduction of costs in

relation to the payment of the sanctions and this may implicate relator Roberto Rojas.

We must first consider our jurisdiction and a relator’s standing is an element

of our subject-matter jurisdiction. See In re Baker, 404 S.W.3d 575, 577 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, orig. proceeding). The requirement of standing is

based on “two limitations on subject-matter jurisdiction: the separation of powers

doctrine and, in Texas, the open courts provision.” Id. at 578 (citing Tex. Ass’n of

Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1993)). To determine

whether a party has standing we consider whether the party has

(1) a direct injury, or threat of a direct injury, resulting from the
complained-of wrongful act;
(2) a direct relationship between the alleged injury and the claim the
party seeks to adjudicate;
(3) a personal stake in the controversy;
(4) an injury in fact arising from the challenged action, either economic,
recreational, environmental, or otherwise; and

2
(5) the appropriateness of the party to assert the public’s interest in the
matter, as well as the party’s own interest.”
Baker, 404 S.W.3d at 578.

Based on our review of the record and the concerns outlined above, the Court

finds no basis for concluding that relator The Dick Law Firm, PLLC has standing to

complain about the June 23, 2025 order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as

to relator The Dick Law Firm, PLLC.

As to the remaining relators, we deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8.

Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.

3