Eric Springstun — Montgomery County Consolidated Cases, Cause 25-04-06650

Court: 284th Judicial District Court, Montgomery County, Texas

Lead Cause: 25-04-06650

Appeal record: Ninth Court of Appeals No. 09-26-00023-CV

Consolidation of related cases

The court record shows that several related lawsuits involving Eric Springstun and Wharf-related defendants were consolidated into Cause No. 25-04-06650.

The consolidation order identifies these causes:

• 25-02-02758
• 25-02-02950
• 25-03-04072
• 25-03-04495
• 25-04-06148

The lead cause, 25-04-06650, is styled Eric Springstun v. Nathan Alexander, Stacy Caston, Robert Trgovich, Kurt Lotero, John Oleyar, and Nasser Hempel.

What the docket shows

The register of actions reflects filings beginning in April 2025, service activity, amended pleadings, motions, responses, subpoenas, consolidation activity, hearings, signed orders, post-order motions, and appellate correspondence.

Chapter 11 security order and appellate review

The appellate appendix identifies an August 24, 2025 Chapter 11 order that imposed prefiling restrictions and required security. Eric Springstun challenged portions of that order through post-order motions and appellate proceedings, including arguments concerning the $25,000 security requirement, the scope of the prefiling language, and the completeness of the appellate record.

Dismissal and later appeal

The register of actions records an Order of Dismissal on October 2, 2025. The appellate appendix later identifies a December 29, 2025 notice of appeal and the appeal record as Ninth Court of Appeals No. 09-26-00023-CV.

Why consolidation can distort a raw case count

Because multiple related causes were formally consolidated, counting every pre-consolidation cause and every later appeal as though each represented a wholly separate controversy can exaggerate the apparent volume of independent litigation. The written consolidation order shows that several matters were being handled together under one lead cause.

This page therefore uses the umbrella chronology and preserves the component case numbers without pretending that every number reflects a completely unrelated dispute.

Why the reporter-record issue matters

Later appellate proceedings also focused on whether the official reporter’s record from the Chapter 11 evidentiary hearing was available for evidence-dependent review. That is procedural context, but it can materially affect what an appellate court is able to evaluate from the record before it.

Source record

• Order granting consolidation into Cause 25-04-06650.
• Register of Actions for Cause 25-04-06650.
• Appendix in lieu of clerk’s record filed in Ninth Court of Appeals No. 09-26-00023-CV.

Editorial note: This page reports docketed events and orders. Allegations from the underlying pleadings are not presented as findings.