In Radelow-Gittens Real Property Management v. Pamex Foods, 735 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1987), the court dealt with the effect on the ability to appeal when a party was omitted from amended pleadings. The court granted a partial summary judgment in Pamex's favor. Radelow-Gittens then filed second and third amended petitions, neither of which contained any claim against Pamex. See id. After entry of final judgment, Radelow-Gittens attempted to appeal the partial summary judgment in favor of Pamex. The court held that Radelow-Gittens could not appeal because it had abandoned its claim against Pamex by the time of the final judgment. See id. at 560. The court noted that Radelow-Gittens could have appealed if it had not abandoned its claims against Pamex. See id.; See also Frias v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 999 S.W.2d 97, 102 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. filed) (second amended motion for summary judgment did not incorporate grounds in first amended motion for summary judgment; appeal could not review denial of first motion because those grounds not before it due to amendment).