NUMBER 13-15-00537-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
HARI PRASAD KALAKONDA, Appellant,
v.
SUSSER PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
NUMBER 13-15-00538-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
IN RE HARI PRASAD KALAKONDA
____________________________________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
By both appeal and petition for writ of mandamus, Hari Prasad Kalakonda,
proceeding pro se, seeks to compel arbitration of the claims in the underlying lawsuit
between Kalakonda and Susser Petroleum Operating Company, LLC (“Susser”). In
cause number 13-15-00537-CV, Kalakonda appeals an order of the trial court denying
arbitration. In cause number 13-15-00538-CV, Kalakonda has filed a petition for writ of
mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to require arbitration with Susser. This
Court previously granted a stay of the trial court proceedings and requested that Sussser
file a response to Kalakonda’s petition for writ of mandamus.
Currently before the Court is Susser’s “Notice of Submission of Case to
Arbitration and Suggestion that Appellate Proceedings are Moot.” According to this
pleading, Susser has filed a complaint in arbitration with the American Arbitration
Association and Kalakonda’s appeal and petition for writ of mandamus are now moot.
Susser requests that this Court dismiss the appeal and original proceeding as moot
because the parties are proceeding to arbitration.
An appellate court is prohibited from deciding a moot controversy or rendering an
advisory opinion. See Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86
(Tex.1999); City of Farmers Branch v. Ramos, 235 S.W.3d 462, 469 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2007, no pet.). If a controversy ceases to exist or the parties lack a legally cognizable
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is
not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2
interest in the outcome at any stage, the case becomes moot. Allstate Ins. Co. v.
Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. 2005); Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex.
2001). Stated otherwise, an issue may be moot if it becomes impossible for the court to
grant effectual relief for any reason. In re H & R Block Financial Advisors, Inc., 262 S.W.3d
896 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding); see Williams, 52 S.W.3d
at 184.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the matters at issue in this
appeal and petition for writ of mandamus, and Susser’s request to dismiss these cases,
is of the opinion that the appeal and original proceeding are now moot. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Susser’s motion to dismiss these cases, LIFTS the stay previously
imposed by this Court, and DISMISSES the petition for writ of mandamus and appeal as
moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Other pending motions, if any, are likewise
dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
1st day of December, 2015.
3