Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-16-00146-CV
Hari Prasad KALAKONDA and Latha KALAKONDA,
Appellants
v.
SUSSER PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY, LLC,
Appellee
From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016-CI-01790
Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 22, 2016
MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
On April 20, 2016, the court issued its opinion and judgment in this appeal. Although a
motion for en banc rehearing is pending, the panel, on its own motion, withdraws its opinion and
judgment of April 20, 2016 and substitutes this opinion and order instead. 1
This is an interlocutory appeal from a trial court’s order denying a temporary and
permanent injunction. Appellants Hari Prasad Kalakonda and Latha Kalakonda (collectively, “the
1
This opinion corrects the fact that the arbitration was not ordered by the Nueces County district court, but rather the
parties essentially agreed to arbitrate.
04-16-00146-CV
Kalakondas”) sought to enjoin an arbitration proceeding. However, because the arbitration
proceeding has occurred, we conclude the appeal is moot. Accordingly, we grant appellee Susser
Petroleum Operating Company’s (“Susser”) motion to dismiss and dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
The Kalakondas filed suit in Bexar County against Susser, seeking temporary and
permanent injunctive relief to stay an arbitration proceeding ordered to occur on March 25, 2016
in Harris County, Texas. 2 The trial court denied the Kalakondas’ request for temporary and
permanent injunctive relief. Thereafter, the Kalakondas filed a notice of appeal and motion for
emergency relief in this court, seeking to overturn the trial court’s order and stay the arbitration
proceeding.
In their motion for emergency relief, the Kalakondas argued they are not parties to a fuel
supply agreement containing the disputed arbitration provision, and therefore, they are not bound
to arbitrate. After reviewing the motion — which revealed the underlying matter arises out of
Nueces County and the parties ultimately agreed to arbitrate — we denied the Kalakondas’ request
for emergency relief. It is undisputed that the contested arbitration proceeding took place on March
25, 2016 in Harris County, and the Kalakondas chose not to attend. Thereafter, Susser filed a
motion to dismiss the Kalakondas’ appeal in this court, arguing the appeal is moot because the
arbitration proceeding the Kalakondas sought to enjoin has taken place. Therefore, according to
Susser, there is no longer a justiciable controversy between the parties.
2
The underlying proceeding arises out of Nueces County. Originally, Susser filed a lawsuit against the Kalakondas
in Nueces County district court. The Kalakondas then filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied by the
Nueces County district court. Thereafter, the Kalakondas filed a mandamus in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals,
seeking mandamus relief and to stay further proceedings. Susser ultimately agreed to arbitrate, and as a result, the
Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed the pending mandamus as moot. The parties then proceeded to arbitration.
-2-
04-16-00146-CV
“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of
the legal proceedings, including the appeal.” In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732,
737 (Tex. 2005); see Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 166 (Tex. 2012) (holding
that case can become moot at any time, including on appeal). This court has stated that “an
appellate issue is moot if either party is seeking judgment on a controversy that does not really
exist or a party seeks a judgment, which when rendered for any reason, cannot have any practical
legal effect.” Ibarra v. City of Laredo, Nos. 04-11-00035-CV & 04-11-00037-CV, 2012 WL
3025709, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 25, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.). “If an appeal is
moot, we must dismiss the case” because we lack jurisdiction to entertain moot controversies. Id.;
see Klein v. Hernandez, 315 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex. 2010); Geters v. Baytown Housing Authority, 430
S.W.3d 578, 582 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). Courts have an obligation to
take into account intervening events that may render an appeal moot. Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at
166–67.
Here, the only issue on appeal before this court is whether the trial court erred in denying
the Kalakondas’ request for injunctive relief with regard to enjoining the arbitration proceeding.
As noted, that proceeding has taken place. See Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 166–67. Thus, if we were
to find the trial court erred in denying the request for temporary and permanent injunctive relief,
it would not have any legal effect given that the arbitration proceeding has already occurred. See
Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d at 737; Ibarra, 2012 WL 3025709, at *2.
The Kalakondas, however, argue their appeal is not moot because if we had granted their
motion for emergency relief in the first instance, the arbitration would not have taken place,
allowing this court to consider their underlying argument as to the propriety of the arbitration. The
Kalakondas also contend their appeal is not moot because they did not attend the arbitration. The
Kalakondas are essentially asking us to visit issues that must be determined by the Nueces County
-3-
04-16-00146-CV
trial court as the underlying dispute arises out of a lawsuit filed by Susser in Nueces County. The
only matter on appeal in this court concerns the Kalakondas’ request for temporary and permanent
injunctive relief, which sought to enjoin an arbitration proceeding that has already occurred.
Accordingly, we conclude the Kalakondas’ appeal of the trial court’s order denying injunctive
relief is moot. See Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d at 737; Ibarra, 2012 WL 3025709,
at *2. Therefore, we grant Susser’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Klein, 315 S.W.3d at 3; Geters, 430 S.W.3d at 582.
PER CURIAM
-4-