Tex. Bus. & Comm nvalidate a [summary] judgment as between parties where the record and judgment together point out, with certainty, the persons and subject matter to be bound."); Sheldon v. Emergency Med. Consultants, I., P.A., 43 S.W.3d 701, 702 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, no pet.) ("[W]hen an intended defendant is sued under an incorrect name, the court acquires jurisdiction after service with the misnomer if it is clear that no one was misled or placed at a disadvantage by the error.”).... Courts are flexible in these cases because the party intended to be sued has been served and put on notice that it is the intended defendant. Pierson, 959 S.W.2d at 347; see also Charles Brown, L.L.P. v. Lanier Worldwide, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 883, 895 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also Adams v. Consol. Underwriters, 133
holding that in a failuretotransfer case if after a full opportunity for discovery the summary judgment record is insufficient to establish the existence of an appropriate position into which the plaintiff could have been transferred summary judgment must be granted in favor of the defendant  even if it also appears that the defendant failed to engage in good faith in the interactive process holding that based on the little information plaintiff provided the court could not conclude that the eeoc affirmatively misled him holding that a complete failure to serve a defendant with process deprives the trial court of personal jurisdiction violates due process and results in a judgment that is void as to that defendant and subject to challenge at any time holding that a misnomer does not render a summary judgment void provided the intention to sue the correct defendant is evident from the pleadings and process such that the defendant could not have been misled holding that where incorrectly named defendant filed a motion to dismiss and an answer with affirmative defenses and actively participated in discovery it led the plaintiff to believe that the correct defendant had been sued and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to amend its complaint to correct the misnomer