TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00173-CV NO. 03-25-00174-CV NO. 03-25-00175-CV NO. 03-25-00176-CV

Leslie Paul Stephens, Appellant v. Cameron Arthur Bird, Judith Ann Bird; Benjamin Travis Robertson; Jessica Jane Robertson; George Gene Brummer; Kimale Langdon Brummer; and Stone Mountain Texas Property Owners’ Association, Inc.; Appellees

FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY NO. 57494, THE HONORABLE EVAN C. STUBBS, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

Stone Mountain Texas Property Owners’ Association, Inc. filed a motion to consolidate Leslie Paul Stephens’s appeals, arising from his underlying suit for declaratory relief.

All appellees are unopposed to Stone Mountain’s consolidation motion, which Stephens opposes.

In cause number 03-25-00173-CV, Stephens appeals an order granting Cameron Arthur Bird and Judith Ann Bird’s plea to the jurisdiction. In cause number 03-25-00174, Stephens appeals an order granting Benjamin Travis Robertson and Jessica Jane Robertson’s plea to the jurisdiction. In cause number 03-25-00175-CV, Stephens appeals an order granting George Gene Brummer and Kimale Langdon Brummer’s motion to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a. Lastly, in cause number 03-25-00176, Stephens appeals an order granting Stone Mountain’s combined motion to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a and plea to the jurisdiction. Stone Mountain seeks consolidation in the interest of judicial economy and for the parties’ convenience, noting that the appeals involve similar legal and fact questions. Cf. In re Ethyl Corp., 975 S.W.2d 606, 610-12 (Tex. 1998) (noting that judicial economy and convenience are relevant factors in determining whether to consolidate cases for trial). Further, it asserts that no harm or prejudice will result from consolidation. See I-10 Colony, Inc. v. Chao Kuan Lee, No. 01-14-00730-CV, 2014 WL 4723290, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

Sept. 23, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that consolidation was proper for appeals involving same parties and issues when no harm or prejudice would result to parties).

The motion is granted, and the appeals are consolidated. The issues, record, and documents filed in cause numbers 03-25-00173-CV, 03-25-00174-CV, and 03-25-00175-CV are consolidated into cause number 03-25-00176-CV. The consolidated appeal will proceed under cause number 03-25-00176-CV, and cause numbers 03-25-00173-CV, 03-25-00174-CV, and 03-25-00175-CV are dismissed. See Cheney v. Levy Co., No. 03-19-00243-CV, 03-19-00334-CV & 03-19-00335-CV, 2020 WL 6265656, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 23, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (consolidating appeals arising from separate orders, including order granting one defendant’s rule 91a motion to dismiss and order granting another defendant’s plea to jurisdiction); Coburn v. Moreland, Nos. 03-12-00662-CV & 03-12-00709-CV, 2013 WL 812082, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 26, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (following similar procedure). Briefing will proceed in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis 03-25-00173-CV Dismissed 03-25-00174-CV Dismissed 03-25-00175-CV Dismissed 03-25-00176-CV Consolidated Filed: September 24, 2025