From, Hari Prasad Kalakonda Latha Kalakonda 5002, Newcastle Ln, San Antonio, Texas

- 78249 Tel: 210 687 4988 email: smfoodmart@Vahoo.com 

### To Mr. Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Fourth Court of Appeals Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 300, Dolorosa, Ste. 3200 San Antonio, TX 78205 Date: May 

## zo-, 2015

Ref: Cause No:**04~15~0114~CV,** 

### Han Prasad Kalakonda and Latha Kalakonda v. Aspri 

### Investments, LLCs. -Additional information related to appeal related cause numbers:**2014~CI~16394** and**2015~CI~1910.** Dear Mr. Hottle, We are writing this letter to inform you that there were some additional developments that occurred after the appeal was filed for cause number: 20**14~CI~** 16394 (C 1) which necessitated the inclusion of records from cause number 20**15~CI~** 01910 (C2) for the appeal process to be complete. Here is a brief summary of reasons. In both the causes the parties are the same as in the appeals cause and core issues are the same. The issues are lease agreement (lease) between the parties,**0+15~0114~CV** Page 1 ACCEPTED 04-15-00114-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 5/21/2015 1:25:45 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERKarbitration, and confirmation of arbitration and post arbitration actions of the landlord. Aspri Investments, LLC (Aspri) is the land lord and Hari Prasad and Latha Kalakonda (Kalakondas) are the tenants who used to run the business of convenience store with gas at the location leased. The parties are bound by an arbitration clause for all the disputes related to the lease. The parties went through arbitration as required by the lease for alleged breaches, with claims and counter claims. The arbitrator awarded around $66,000 to Aspri and gave Kalakondas 30 days (up to November 10 th 2014) to pay without interest or pay a 6% interest after 30 days (after November 

# to- 2014). Arbitrator denied Aspri's claims in the arbitration to terminate the lease and take possession of the premises. While Kalakondas were recovering from the award and planning to make the arrangements for payments, Aspri terminated the lease on October 24 th 2014 preemptively without notice for the reason of nonpayment of arbitrator's award. Aspri also ordered eviction through a letter asking Kalakondas to leave the premises within three days (letter received on October 2Th 2014) i.e., by November I" 2014. Kalakondas immediately responded saying that, Aspri's actions were neither as per the lease nor as per the arbitrator's award and requested them to review their decision. Kalakonda's have also notified Aspri that they are not waiving any of their rights and will be claiming damages by filing for an arbitration which was the only platform available to address this issue as per lease. Aspri stood by its wrong decision and asked Kalakondas to leave the premises promptly. Kalakondas' choices were limited. One is to get forcefully sent out like Aspri's other tenants like Maryam Begum Afeef and Tony Afeef (Aspri Investments, LLC v. Page 2

### A feef, No .**04~10..o057 3~CV)**  and get in sulted b ef ore the public w ho m th ey kno w f or y ear s a s cu stomers o r f oll ow the ord ers and avo id vi olence . Kalakon das' ha ve n o intent t o leave th e pr emi ses until at least th e lease is o ver o n Febru ary 28 th 2017 . Kalakondas al so did n ot make any cl aim f or t ermination o f lease during the fir st a rbitration. Th e inc ome from the c onveni en ce s tore is the so urce o f income K alakondas hav e reli ed o n for years for living and is the only so urce f or payment of a rbitration award a nd o ther debts accumulated to defend th em selves during the a rbitration. Du e t o loss o f main source o f in c om e Kalakonda s' h ave t o defend th emselves as 

### pro se w h ich o the rwise th ey w oul d h ave by an Attorn ey as they did in a rbitration o r Kalak ond as w ould n ot h ave b e en h ere as th ey wo uld h ave p aid th e a rbitration aw ard a nd c ontinued t o d o th eir bu siness. While d oin g a ll th ese, A spri fil ed a pe tition and an oth er a me nde d petiti on w ith th e distri ct co urt f or c onfirmati on o f th e arbitration aw ard a nd pl e aded the c ourt f or termin ati on o f the lea se and p ossessi on o f the pr emi ses wh ich the arbitrator has explicitly denied in the arbitration. However th ese are th e claims s ubject to arbitrati on and not in the purvi ew o f the courts, t o d ecid e. While a nswering the petiti on Kal akondas have b rou ght to the notic e o f th e c ourt that A s pri is askin g for co nfir ma tion o f a n awa rd tha t wa s breach ed o r v iolated b y th em fir st, b y termin atin g th e lease a nd t akin g p ossessi on o f th e premi ses. N o claim s and co unter claims we re m ad e, n o relief w as re qu ested , n o di scovery w as made b y Kal ak ondas and n o h e arin g wa s c ondu cted by th e c ourt t o h ear any o f the is sue s o the r than th e co nfir ma tion o f the award durin g th e c onfirm ati on h e arin g process . Sub s equently th e co urt co nfirmed th e awa rd. Thi s is all ab out ca use 1 63 94 

### (Cl) .**04~** 15..00**114~CV** Page 3Meanwhile Kalak onda s have n otified Asp ri about th eir intent to arbitrate lease t ermin ati on a nd all o the r cl aim s th at they p reserved ri gh ts f or during their ea rlier arbitration. Th e r e qu e sted arbitra tio n was n ot ab out di str ict co ur t's co nfirme d aw ard a nd a lso n ot abo ut th e issues that have alrea dy bee n a ddressed b y p revio us arbitrati on as advertised b y Aspr i o n seve ral o ccasi on s m isguidin g th e jud ges hearin g th e case. It is not Aspri, n ot Kalak onda and n ot th e co urt that d ecides arbitrability o r 

### r es judicata of th e issues presented for arbitra tion but the arbitrator who h as bee n cho sen by th e p arti es f or arbitration . Kalakond a's h ave r equ ested th e n am ed ar bitrator in th e lease to co nduct arb itration w ho r ecused him s elf b ecause h e h andl ed th e fir st a rb itra tion a nd dir ect ed the p ariti es t o AAA arbitra tion. Kalako ndas filed f or arb itra tion w ith AAA, w hich after c areful a nd th orou gh r eview h ave acce pted th e case a nd in itiated th e arbitra tion process a nd gave d eadlin es t o K alak ond as a nd As pri t o fil e cl aim s and co unter claims. If th ere are n o claim s, n o fee h as to be p aid . After th e co nfir ma tion of the award, Kalakondas have fil ed th eir first ever m otion by setting a h e aring with the c ourt , t o r econsider its d ecisi on t o confirm th e arbitration award . During the same h e arin g A spri brought th e a me nde d petition t o o btain a TRO to r e str ain Kalak ondas fr om filin g arbitration as pe r th e lease but t o file a ll the di spu tes in the B exar Co u nty di stri ct co urt, th ou gh pa rties are b ound b y a rbi tra tion cl ause. Asp ri also w anted t o r e str ain Kalak ond as from se tting a h earing th ou gh the y h ad se t o nly o ne hearin g (cu rrent o ne) and d eclare K alak onda 's a s vexa tious liti gants th ou gh th ey n ever fil ed a ny su it aga ins t a nyo ne in th e w ho le co untry exce pt co m ing t o th e co urt as a nd w he n A spri n otifi es u s t o co me t o th e co urt. As pri n ever co nsulted Kal ak ond as t o find o ut if a h e arin g d ate is workabl e o r n ot. Essentially th e T RO is to restr ain th eir bas ic rights to see k ju stice a nd to d elay Page 4th e arbitrati on at any cos t. Th e H on orabl e c ourt h as s imply d en ied As pri's m oti on f

or TR O p oint-bl ank. At thi s tim e h avin g b een d eni ed a TRO by th e di strict co urt, A spri re sorted t o tr icks b y filin g a n ew p etition with a new cau se number but with th e s ame reli ef as in th e d eni ed p etiti on /m ot ion . A spri ex pected th at a n ew judge w ill lo ok at it (as th e judges are ass igned o n av ailability bas is), in the di strict c ourt a nd give a f av orabl e r e sult . Aspri did n ot f ormally noti fy th e Kalakond a's ab out th e TRO hearing th ou gh there was e nough tim e and th e h e arin g was p re pl ann ed w ell a head, n otified th e wr ong time t o come to th e court by e mail a day b efore. Kalak onda co uld n ot a tte nd the h e arin g, n o co u rt rep orters rec ord was requ ested and th e TRO w as ob tained 

### ex-parte w itho ut citin g any irr ep arabl e d amage. Th e TRO lacked b asic inf orm ati on o f a TRO . Thi s is cau se numb er**2015~ CI-01** **910( 2)**  A spri immedi ately w ith in minute s co m mun icated th e TRO t o AAA a nd as ked f or stay o f th e arbitrati on p roceedings. In th e ne xt hearin g o f the c ause C2, an oth er jud ge he ard th e c ase a nd questi oned the l egality o f A s pri's argume nt t o file the di s pute s regarding a leas e that is s ubject to arbitratio n in B exar Co unty co urts and s tro ngly q uestio ned the logic o f 

### res - judicata argume nt o f As pri. S ensing tha t s he m ay d eny th e TRO , As pri s uggested go ing ba ck t o th e sa me judge, H on orabl e Kar en Pozza wh o c onfirmed th e arbitration aw ard f or clarificati on o n h er judgem ent. Th e judge suggested th e pa rties t o a pproach Ju dge Pozza within 3 0 d ays f or a cl arificati on o n her a rbitration co nfirmation if it inclu ded o ther arbitrable d isputes th at occ urre d after th e fir st a rbitra tion w as co mpleted.**04~** 

### 15-00 114- CV Page 5

### Thirty days have passed and Aspri had no intent to setup a hearing as their sole intent is to delay the arbitration as long as possible at any cost and let Kalakondas lose the arbitration fee paid. Hence, Kalakonda's have requested a hearing to dissolve the TRO and a hearing was setup with Honorable Judge Karen Pozza. During the hearing, instead of asking for a clarification, Aspri requested for extension of TRO and the case was referred to the appeals court. Essentially Kalakonda's were compelled to 

### move to appeals court for moving ahead with the arbitration. The same court that initially denied the same TRO point blank has issued the TRO though nothing has since been changed except that a new cause was opened to bypass the current judge. The district court, instead of making a decision on res judicata claims of Aspri as that is the court that confirmed the award has ambiguously extended the TRO and passed its responsibility to the appeals court. Kalakonda's have requested "Finding of Facts and Conclusion of Law" from the court and also sent a past due notice for FoF and CoL and are awaiting a response from court. The cause C2 is a child of Cl and got back and merged with parent Cl for the reasons explained above. As the parties are same and the issues and underlying artifacts are same and interwoven, we request the court to treat these two causes as one cause with main cause being Cl for the purpose of appeal. CC: Ms. Donna Kay McKinney Bexar County District Clerk (via 

### electronic filing)



### 04-15-00114-CY Sincerely,

# ---------~------- / sd/ Latha Kalakonda Hari Prasad Kalakonda Latha Kalakonda Page 6

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE W e certify th at o n May 2 1, 2 015, a tru e a nd co rrect copy of thi s letter w as serve d o n th e fo llowing co unsel of record via Eservice. Mi chael D . Co nner Hirsch 

### & We sth eim er PC 1 4 15 Louisiana, 36 th Floor H ou ston, TX 77002 Mr. Fred erick 

### L. Fuhr , Th e Fuhr Law F irm 107 Land ing Blvd., S uite F League C ity, T exas 77 57 3 M r. Eri c Lipp er Hir sch 

### & W esth eim er P C 141 5 L oui sian a, 36th Floor H ou st on , Te xas 7700 2

/sd/ Lath a Kalakonda App ell ants Hari Pra sad Kalakond a and Lath a K alak on da Ms. Donna Kay McKinney (v ia 

### electronic filing) Bexar County District Clerk

Page 7