order, re- ex.1998) (same); First Oil PLC, 264 S.W.3d at 777, 781 (same). The test for whether a party has made a general appearance by obtaining- a hearing on another motion before obtaining a ruling on his special appearance is whether the other motion sought “affirmative relief inconsistent with [his] assertion that the district court lacked jurisdiction.” Dawson-Austin, 968 S.W.2d at 323. Trenz does not contend that the hearings he obtained on his motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were necessary to, inextricably intertwined with, or otherwise related to, his special appearance. Nor does he deny that they sought affirmative relief from the trial court inconsistent with his assertion that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him. See Klingensehmitt, 342 S.W.3d at 134 (<HOLDING>); SBG Dev. Servs., 2011 WL 5247873, at *2-4
holding that the defendant did not waive his special appearanee by filing a motion for sanctions that was made subject to and in the alternative to his special appearance and where the motion for sanctions was not heard or ruled upon holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that party sought affirmative relief by filing motion to dismiss and violated dueorderofhearing requirement by having motion to dismiss and motion to reconsider dismissal heard before special appearance holding that a motion to dismiss based on a forumselection clause should be treated as a rule 12b3 motion to dismiss for improper venue holding that defendant did not waive his special appearance by filing a motion for new trial subject to the special appearance