Ernie Alonzo, Michele Pena, Oscar Salinas, and Dr. Mario Salinas v. Paul Rocha, as Next Friend of N.R.

NUMBER 13-26-00350-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ERNIE ALONZO, MICHELE PEÑA
OSCAR SALINAS, AND DR. MARIO
SALINAS, Appellants,

v.

PAUL ROCHA, AS NEXT FRIEND
OF N.R., Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 476TH DISTRICT COURT
OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina

Appellants Ernie Alonzo, Michele Pena, Oscar Salinas, and Dr. Mario Salinas filed

a notice of appeal in this matter on grounds that the trial court had implicitly denied their
plea to the jurisdiction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(8).1 On May 4,

2026, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that it appeared that there was not a final,

appealable order, requested appellants to correct this defect, and advised appellants that

the appeal would be dismissed if the defect were not corrected. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a), (c).

On May 13, 2026, appellants filed a brief in support of appellate jurisdiction in this

case. They assert that the trial court implicitly denied their plea to the jurisdiction by

issuing orders disqualifying appellants’ counsel, striking their pleadings, and ordering

appellants to obtain new counsel. Appellants contend that, “The disqualification could not

have been issued by the trial court without an assertion of jurisdiction.”

The Supreme Court of Texas has held that a jurisdictional plea may be implicitly

denied:

To be entitled to an interlocutory appeal, section 51.014(a)(8) requires the
denial of a jurisdictional challenge. In this case, none of the trial court’s
orders on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment explicitly denied
the relief sought in the section of Thomas’s motion for summary judgment
challenging the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. However, the trial
court’s rulings on the merits of some claims for which Thomas argued the
trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction constitute an implicit rejection of
Thomas’s jurisdictional challenges. The Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure only require that the record show the trial court ruled on the
request, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly. TEX. R. APP. P.
33.1(a)(2)(A). Because a trial court cannot reach the merits of a case
without subject matter jurisdiction, Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd.,
852 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex.1993), a trial court that rules on the merits of an
issue without explicitly rejecting an asserted jurisdictional attack has
implicitly denied the jurisdictional challenge. See, e.g., Soberay Mach. &

1 In a related petition for writ of mandamus, appellants asserted in relevant part that the trial court

abused its discretion by failing to rule on their plea to the jurisdiction. By separate memorandum opinion
issued this same date, we have denied their petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Alonzo, No. 13-26-
340-CV, 2026 WL _____, at *__ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June __, 2026, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op.).
2
Equip. Co. v. MRF Ltd., 181 F.3d 759, 762 (6th Cir.1999); Ahuna v. Dep’t
of Hawaiian Home Lands, 64 Haw. 327, 640 P.2d 1161, 1165 n. 9 (1982).
By ruling on the merits of Long’s declaratory judgment claim, the trial court
necessarily denied Thomas’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction. That
implicit denial satisfies section 51.014(a)(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code and gives the court of appeals jurisdiction to consider
Thomas’s interlocutory appeal.

Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 339–40 (Tex. 2006). Here, the trial court has not

explicitly ruled on appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction. Further, the trial court’s ruling on the

disqualification of counsel does not constitute a ruling on the merits of the case or on any

claims which would be subject to appellants’ jurisdictional challenge. Therefore, the trial

court’s orders do not serve as an implicit denial of the plea to the jurisdiction. See id.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the

applicable law, is of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

JAIME TIJERINA
Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the
9th day of June, 2026.

3