Thompson Hancock Witte & Associates, Inc. v. Stanley Spurling & Hamilton, Inc., 14-21-00091-CV

Brazos Presbyterian Homes sued general contractor Lendlease; later alleged Thompson Hancock’s defective retaining-wall design caused flooding and added Thompson Hancock as a defendant, attaching two certificates of merit to Brazos’s Second Amended Petition (one by a P.E., one by an architect emeritus).
Thompson Hancock filed a third-party petition against Stanley Spurling alleging breach of contract and negligent design, but did not attach any certificate of merit; Thompson Hancock later non-suited that third-party claim and then refiled the same third-party petition on Feb. 13, 2020, again without a certificate of merit.
Stanley Spurling filed (1) a Rule 11 agreement evidencing mutual non-suit, (2) a Chapter 150 motion to dismiss for failure to file a certificate of merit, and (3) a motion to enforce the Rule 11 agreement.
The trial court granted both motions: it enforced the Rule 11 dismissal and separately dismissed Thompson Hancock’s third-party claims with prejudice under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 150.002; the court severed the claims and entered a final, appealable judgment.
Thompson Hancock appealed, arguing (1) the Rule 11 dismissal was improper and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing under Chapter 150 because Thompson Hancock either wasn’t required to file a certificate or could rely on Brazos’s earlier certificate(s).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thompson Hancock needed to file a Chapter 150 certificate when it refiled its third-party petition after a non‑suit	Thompson Hancock: its March 2019 assertions set the governing law (2009 statute) and as a third‑party plaintiff it wasn’t a “plaintiff” required to file; alternatively it could rely on Brazos’s previously filed certificate(s)	Stanley Spurling: refiled suit in Feb. 2020 is a new claim governed by the 2019 amendment requiring any "claimant" to file a certificate contemporaneously; Brazos’s certificates were not incorporated/attached by Thompson Hancock	Held: Refiled claim is governed by 2019 statute; "claimant" covers third‑party plaintiffs; Thompson Hancock failed to file or properly incorporate a certificate, so dismissal under §150.002 was not an abuse of discretion
Whether Rule 11 mutual non‑suit barred dismissal under Chapter 150	Thompson Hancock: trial court erred enforcing Rule 11 to dismiss its claims	Stanley Spurling: Rule 11 required mutual non‑suits as agreed	Held: Court did not resolve this issue because dismissal under Chapter 150 was dispositive; appeal affirmed on §150 grounds

Dunham Eng’g, Inc. v. Sherwin‑Williams Co., 404 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (standard of review for §150 dismissal is abuse of discretion)
Jaster v. Comet II Constr., Inc., 438 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. 2014) ("claimant" includes third‑party plaintiffs, cross‑claimants, counterclaimants)
Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon ex rel. Schultz, 195 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2006) (a non‑suit extinguishes the case as if never filed)
Morris v. Ponce, 584 S.W.3d 922 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019) (an action commences as to each defendant when first named)
Miramar Petroleum, Inc. v. Cimarron Eng’g, LLC, 484 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2016) (certificate of merit must accompany the first petition filed in the new action after dismissal)
Hydrotech Eng’g Inc. v. OMP Dev., LLC, 438 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (mere reference to a certificate without attaching or expressly incorporating it is insufficient under §150)