because the trial court’s order granting Siderca’s special exception does not expressly state that it affects Continental’s right to join additional parties as defendants. Continental argues that the court could not disregard those additional defendants that had been joined by amendments in accordance with Rule 68 and, in some cases, had answered. For the reasons stated above, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking Continental’s amended pleadings. Having struck the pleadings that purported to join additional defendants, the answers or other pleadings filed by such “defendants" were not entitled to consideration by the trial court. See Daca, Inc. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 822 S.W.2d 360, 368 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). We overrule point of error six. C. Res
holding that a party does not waive arbitration simply by failing to invoke it in the complaint or answer holding that the new defendant an alleged coperpetrator of the harms litigated in the first lawsuit could invoke the doctrine of res judicata because it had a sufficiently close relationship to the original defendant holding that a voluntary change in behavior occurring after the filing of the lawsuit does not confer prevailingparty status on the plaintiffs holding that a default judgment could not be rendered without satisfying the procedural requirements of rule 55b2 fedrcivp after the defendant had made an appearance in the lawsuit by filing an answer in state court in a case that had been removed to federal court holding that filing an answer  does not invoke the status as a defendant in plaintiffs lawsuit