State District Judge Scott Jenkins has denied Alex Jones' request to dismiss the latest case alleging that the Austin radio and internet host was fully aware he would cause harm to Sandy Hook parents when he falsely reported that the 2012 Newtown, Conn., school shooting was a hoax.

Jenkins' two-sentence order, filed in Travis County District Court on Friday, marks the third time the judge declined to dismiss a Sandy Hook parent's lawsuit against Jones. With Jones' lawyer appealing the order sometime this week, all three cases will be teed-up for hearings before the Third Court of Appeals in Austin.

"With this latest ruling, these families now have a light at the end of the tunnel in their struggle for justice and accountability," said Houston attorney Mark Bankston, who represents Sandy Hook parent Scarlett Lewis in the latest case and three more parents in the two other ones.

Robert Barnes, the Los Angeles attorney who earlier this year became chief counsel for InfoWars, Jones' media platform, said he was also pleased with Jenkins' ruling.

"The judge's ruling does us a favor because it allows us to get to the issue cleanly, clearly, directly in front of the appeals courts, and the Texas Supreme Court, and ultimately, we believe, The U.S. Supreme Court," Barnes, joined by Jones, told the American-Statesman in a phone call Monday afternoon from the InfoWars studios in Austin, where Barnes has become a frequent guest of the show.

Taking over the Lewis case in April, Barnes surprised Bankston and Jenkins by announcing that, for purposes of the appeal, he would not dispute the facts laid out by Bankston, but would seek to have the case dismissed solely on the legal grounds that a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress cannot be brought by someone who was never mentioned by name, even if Jones knew what he was saying was not true.

“It’s kind of an O. Henry ending,” Jenkins said when Barnes sprung the new strategy in the nearly empty courtroom in April. “It’s a legal argument that’s very, very interesting.”

Barnes said Jenkins had recognized the case brought about "a very serious, unique First Amendment issue."

"I think (Jenkins is) as eager as everyone else to see how the appellate courts decide the issue," he said.

In the other two Sandy Hook cases, the parents — who were more specifically identified by Jones during his broadcasts — are making claims of both defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Lewis, on the other hand, is only making the latter claim.

If Jones loses, Barnes said, "it opens up a floodgate of litigation where anyone upset or offended by someone's speech can sue them even if that person they are suing did not talk about them as an individual."

But Bankston said “the deeper question is, do (Jones and the InfoWars team) know that Scarlett exists, do they know who she is and why she’s emotionally vulnerable, and did they take steps to do stuff that they knew would hurt her.”

Bankston said the answer is yes.

On Thursday, Jenkins held a hearing on a motion by Bankston to revoke Barnes' "pro hac vice" permission, which allows Barnes to represent Jones as an out-of-jurisdiction lawyer in an Austin courtroom.

Bankston has contended that Barnes, in appearances on InfoWars, had portrayed Bankston as "a sinister bad faith agent in a conspiracy to destroy the InfoWars movement." Bankston argued that that kind of talk had placed him and his wife at risk of retaliation from some InfoWars audience members.

Jenkins did not revoke Barnes' standing, though Bankston could try again if and when the case returns to Jenkins' courtroom.

Jones said the attempt had been an inappropriate effort to gag his attorney in a First Amendment case.