Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kyle Bartholomew and Shannon Ramirez filed a notice of appeal on July 15, 2026, after a July 6 hearing at which the Hays County Court at Law No. 3 orally denied the plea to the jurisdiction and no-evidence summary-judgment motion filed by them and Richard Thompson. The trial court signed its interlocutory “Order Overruling Movants’ Second Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction and Denying Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment” on July 23. That appeal was docketed as cause number 03-26-00672-CV.
On September 1, Thompson filed a “Notice of Restricted Appeal” from the same order, docketed as cause number 03-26-00820-CV. He later moved in the first cause for leave to amend the notice of appeal and join the July 15 notice. Thompson explained that his notice was incorrectly captioned as a restricted appeal and should have been treated as an ordinary notice joining the existing appeal. A footnote observes that restricted appeal was inappropriate because he appeared through counsel at the hearing, citing Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 30. Thompson sought both amendment and consolidation.
Thompson filed his motion and proposed amended/joint notice on September 18, before Bartholomew and Ramirez filed their appellants’ brief. The proposed notice was joined by those appellants, and appellee William Bates did not file a response opposing the motion. Separately, the court noted in a footnote that Bartholomew and Ramirez filed their own amended notice on September 15 to amend their description of the July 23 order.
The Court’s Holding
The court quoted Rule 25.1(g), which permits an amended notice correcting a defect or omission to be filed in the appellate court at any time before the appellant’s brief is filed, subject to being struck for cause on motion of an affected party. After the brief is filed, amendment requires leave of the appellate court on terms the court may prescribe.
Discussing similar situations, the court compared St. Mina Auto Sales, Inc. v. Al-Muasher, 481 S.W.3d 661, 666 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied), which allowed an unopposed amended notice to add an appellant under its particular timing circumstances, with Cortez v. Brown, No. 03-17-00365-CV, 2019 WL 961672, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 28, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.), which denied leave where amendment was not sought until after the appellant filed a brief. The quoted St. Mina discussion explains that Rule 25.1(g) is not limited to amendments filed by the original appellant and that latecomers are addressed procedurally by balancing equities and weighing individual circumstances. The court also cited Warwick Towers Council of Co-Owners ex rel. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Park Warwick, L.P., 244 S.W.3d 838, 839 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam).
On these facts, the court held that Thompson was not required to file a motion for leave to file the amended notice adding him as an appellant and correcting the restricted-appeal designation because he filed it before Bartholomew and Ramirez’s brief was filed. The court also stated that no motion to strike it for cause had been filed. Its disposition thus rested on the stated procedural circumstances, including the pre-brief filing and absence of opposition, rather than announcing that every pre-brief addition of an appellant automatically proceeds without regard to the case’s circumstances.
Key Takeaways
- Thompson’s “Amended/Joint Notice of Appeal” is deemed filed September 18, 2026, as a regular, not restricted, appeal.
- The court granted consolidation: filings in cause number 03-26-00820-CV are consolidated into cause number 03-26-00672-CV.
- The consolidated appeal proceeds under cause number 03-26-00672-CV; the separate cause is dismissed, and the appeal is restyled Kyle Bartholomew, Shannon Ramirez, and Richard Thompson v. William Bates.
Why It Matters
The opinion addresses the procedural treatment of a party seeking to join an existing appeal and correct an erroneous restricted-appeal designation. It applies Rule 25.1(g)’s pre-brief amendment framework while emphasizing the individual circumstances reflected in the cited authorities and the record before the court.
The ruling resolves appellate procedure only. It does not decide the merits of the plea to the jurisdiction or no-evidence summary-judgment motion, which remain matters for the consolidated appeal.