the trial for January 9, 2012. In November 2011, Trenz moved for pro hac vice admission of an attorney to appear before the court on his behalf at trial; the trial court granted the pro hac vice motion in December 2011. Finally, in December 2011, Trenz set his special appearance for another hearing on January 6, 2012 — three days before the scheduled trial setting. After the trial court sent notice of a January 6, 2012 docket call for the January 9, 2012 trial setting, Trenz moved for a ruling on his special appearance or, alternatively, an emergency oral hearing. In the motion, Trenz noted that the trial court "did not issue a ruling” on his special appear x.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (same); SBG Dev. Servs., 2011 WL 5247873, at *2-4 (same), with Trejo, 142 S.W.3d at 306 (<HOLDING>); Dawson-Austin v. Austin, 968 S.W.2d 319, 322
holding that filing of rule 11 agreement and hearing of jurisdictionrelated discovery dispute did not waive special appearance holding that defendant did not waive special appearance 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 party waived special appearance holding that defendant does not waive special appearance by engaging in discovery regarding merits of plaintiffs claims