at the December 2005 hearing and that the court “ha[d], to date, not ruled.” Trenz therefore requested a ruling “[i]n anticipation of trial.” The trial court then entered an order overruling Trenz’s special appearance. 3. Trenz did not comply with the due-order-of-hearing requirement Generally, if a defendant obtains a hearing on a motion that seeks affirmative relief unrelated to his special appearance before he obtains a hearing and ruling on his special appearance, he has entered a general appearance and thus waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction; but if a defendant obtains a hearing on a motion that only seeks relief appurtenant to his special appearance, it may not result in waiver. Compare Klingenschmitt v. Weinstein, 342 S.W.3d 131, 134 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Landry v. Daigrepont, 35 S.W.3d 265, 267-68
holding that defendant does not waive special appearance by engaging in discovery regarding merits of plaintiffs claims holding that partys label of appearance as general or special does not control and that a request for continuance is a form of relief that a party may seek only by submitting to the courts jurisdiction holding that defendant did not waive special appearance holding that party waived special appearance holding that defendant did not waive his special appearance by filing a motion for new trial subject to the special appearance