Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith Opinion by Justice Molberg In this accelerated interlocutory appeal, Dallas Palms, LLC appeals the trial court’s order granting a joint motion for dismissal filed by S. Vic Jones, Jr. (Jones), S. Vic Jones & Associates, Ltd. (SVJA), and SVJ, LLC and dismissing, without prejudice, Dallas Palms’ claims against appellees for failing to file a certificate of merit under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 150.002. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 150.002. In five issues,[1] Dallas Palms argues the trial court abused its discretion in granting appellees’ motion and dismissing its claims. For the reasons below, we sustain Dallas Palms’ first issue, need not address its other issues, reverse the trial court’s order, and remand for further proceedings. Procedural Background On November 6, 2020, Dallas Palms initiated this lawsuit by suing various other parties who are not parties to this appeal.[2] A little over a month later, Dallas Palms amended its petition, maintaining the same claims against the then-existing defendants, adding other parties who are not parties to this appeal, and adding Jones as a defendant. Against Jones, Dallas Palms asserted claims for breach of contract, fraud, breach of implied warranties, and DTPA violations. Jones filed a responsive pleading that included a general denial, verified denial,[3] and affirmative defenses. Dallas Palms filed a second amended original petition in mid-August 2022, maintaining the same causes of action against Jones and the other parties and adding as defendants SVJA and SVJ, LLC. Against SVJA and SVJ, LLC, Dallas Palms asserted the same causes of action it alleged against Jones. SVJA and SVJ, LLC filed a responsive pleading that included a general denial and affirmative defenses. On the same day SVJA and SVJ, LLC filed their responsive pleading, Jones, SVJA, and SVJ, LLC filed a joint “Motion to Dismiss Under Chapter 150 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code” (Motion). Dallas Palms filed a response opposing the Motion, and appellees filed a reply supporting it. In the meantime, and before the trial court ruled on Dallas Palms’ Motion, Dallas Palms amended its petition twice more. In its fourth amended original petition, the latest of those filings, Dallas Palms asserted the same causes of action against appellees as described above but also included language alleging that, under various provisions of the Texas Tax Code, Jones is liable for SVJ, LLC’s debts and liabilities, and SVJ, LLC and Jones are liable for SVJA’s debts and liabilities. The trial court heard appellees’ Motion on January 26, 2023, and signed the order at issue the following day, dismissing Dallas Palms’ claims against appellees without prejudice. This appeal followed. Discussion & Analysis In its first issue, Dallas Palms argues the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing its claims for failing to file a certificate of merit because there is no evidence that Jones, SVJA, or SVJ, LLC were “licensed or registered professionals” as defined in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 150.001(1-c).[4] Appellees counter that Jones is a licensed or registered architect, that SVJA and SVJ, LLC are exempt from registration requirements because Jones is a sole practitioner, and that the evidence supporting the trial court’s implicit findings of both of those alleged facts are found via judicial notice and in the record. In response, Dallas Palms contends judicial notice is inappropriate and argues the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing its claims because the record does not sufficiently demonstrate appellees are licensed or registered professionals. Crux of Dallas Palms’ Claims According to its pleadings, Dallas Palms operates a full-service event venue in Carrollton, Texas for weddings, receptions, corporate functions, and special events, and, in 2018, Dallas Palms decided to expand improvements on its property to accommodate more guests. The crux of Dallas Palms’ lawsuit involves alleged contracts entered into in 2018 and various claims arising from that project. As to appellees, Dallas Palms’ fourth amended petition states, in part, that Dallas Palms “signed a contract with SVJA, dated November l, 2018 . . . and paid SVJA $40,000.00, so that SVJA would be [Dallas Palms'] ‘eyes and ears’ for the Project, to prepare plans and drawings for the Project . . . , and to obtain the necessary permits from the City of Carrollton[.]” Dallas Palms asserts against appellees claims for breach of contract, fraud, breach of implied warranties, and DTPA violations and alleges that, under various provisions of the Texas Tax Code, Jones is liable for SVJ, LLC’s debts and liabilities, and SVJ, LLC and Jones are liable for SVJA’s debts and liabilities. Pertinent Filings & Judicial Notice Requests As previously indicated, Dallas Palms appeals the trial court’s order granting appellees’ Motion and dismissing Dallas Palms’ claims against appellees for failure to file a certificate of merit under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 150.002. In that Motion—without citing to or submitting any supporting evidence— appellees stated, “[Jones] is a licensed architect, and he performs architectural services through his company [SVJA, an architectural firm]. SVJ, LLC is the general partner of [SVJA].” Appellees attached to their Motion a single, unauthenticated document—appellees’ exhibit A—a purported contract between SVJA and an entity named “Dallas Palms Venue” or “The Dallas Palms Venue.” Appellees described exhibit A as “an agreement for professional services” and as “the only contract signed by” any appellee. Dallas Palms opposed the Motion, arguing, in part, no certificate of merit was required because “neither SVJA nor SVJ, LLC are registered architectural firms.” Dallas Palms asked the trial court “to take judicial notice of the [Texas Board of Architectural Examiners'] online roster of registered architectural firms, a search of which can be found at: https://bizreg.tbae.texas.gov/Home/BusinessSearch.” Also included in its response were two images purporting to be December 12, 2022 screenshots stating, “There Is No Result Based on Your Search Criteria.”[5] Cued, apparently, by Dallas Palms’ response, in their reply brief in the trial court, appellees asked the trial court “to take judicial notice of the [Texas Board of Architectural Examiners'] online roster of registered architects, a search of which can be found at: https://indreg.tbae.texas.gov/Reports/IndividualSearch.” Appellees’ reply brief also included an unauthenticated, undated image purporting to be a screenshot of the following text from the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners’ website: Individual License Detail [Image] TEXAS Board of Architectural Examiners Architects Landscape Architects Registered Interior Designers JONES, SAMUEL VICTOR, Jr. Profession: Architect Registration No.: 7102 License Status: Active Firm Name: [No info; field was left blank] Address: [Info in image but is unnecessary here] Original Issue: 03/01/1979 Lic. Expiration: 08/31/2023 Below that image, appellees’ trial court reply brief included another image as well—the signature block, signature, and seal on the unauthenticated, purported contract included in appellees’ exhibit A, which appeared as follows: