Robinson v. Bowen was filed in the Northern District of California. This new suit is filed in the Southern District of Texas. A decision in the federal court in CA is not binding on and would not need to be considered by the federal court in TX. Though, there's a very good chance Robinson is cited (along with any number of other cases from the McCain and Obama litigation) as support for dismissing this case for lack of plaintiff's standing to sue.
Though Robinson is the case that suggests that for proper standing to be found it will require not just that another presidential candidate sue, but that it be a viable candidate (i.e., not one who gets on a ballot in a single state for the sole purpose to be a plaintiff):
Turning to the viability of the case at large, plaintiff has no standing to challenge Senator McCain's qualifications. Plaintiff is a mere candidate hoping to become a California elector pledged to an obscure third-party candidate whose presidential prospects are theoretical at best. Plaintiff has, therefore, no greater stake in the matter than a taxpayer or voter. Hollander v. McCain, 2008 WL 2853250 (D.N.H.2008).
I expect this reasoning may well be extended from one hoping to be an elector to an obscure third-party candidate to the "obscure third-party candidate" himself.
Here is the faulty reasoning in that ruling...
Constitution of the United States Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.
To claim 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1403(a) grants the status of natural born citizen upon anyone is an outright lie due to the fact that Congress can only pass laws governing naturalization. Congress doesn't have the ability to "render" anyone into a natural born citizens, they can only make a foreigner/alien into a US citizen.
If people can't understand something as simple as that then I really feel sorry for our nation and ts future.