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~16394and 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

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 5/21/2015 1:25:45 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
arbitration, 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 10th 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 24th 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 insulted before the public who m they know for

years as customers or foll ow the orders and avoid violence. Kalakondas' have no

intent to leave the premises until at least the lease is over on February 28th 2017 .

Kalakondas also did not make any claim for termination of lease during the first

a rbitration. The income from the convenience store is the source of income

Kalakondas have relied on for years for living and is the only source for payment of

arbitration award and other debts accumulated to defend themselves during the

a rbitration. Due to loss of main source of income Kalakondas' have to defend

themselves as pro se wh ich othe rwise they would have by an Attorney as they did in

arbitration or Kalakondas would not have been here as they would have paid the

arbitration award and continued to do their business.

While doing all these, Aspri filed a petition and another ame nde d petition

with th e district court for confirmation of the arbitration award and pleaded the

court for termination of the lease and possession of the premises which the

arbitrator has explicitly denied in the arbitration. However these are the claims

subject to arbitration and not in the purview of the courts, to decide. While

answering the petition Kalakondas have brought to the notice of the court that

Aspri is asking for co nfirmation of an award that was breached or violated by them

first, by terminating the lease and taking possession of the premises. No claims and

co unter claims were mad e, no relief was requested , no discovery was made by

Kalakondas and no hearing was conducted by the court to hear any of the issues

othe r than the co nfirmation of the award during the confirmation hearing process.

Subsequently the co urt confirmed the award. This is all ab out cause 16394

(Cl).

04~ 15..00114~CV Page 3
Meanwhile Kalakondas have notified Asp ri about their intent to arbitrate

lease termination and all othe r claims that they preserved righ ts for during their

earlier arbitration. The requested arbitratio n was not about district court's

co nfirme d award and also not about the issues that have alrea dy been addressed by

previo us arbitration as advertised by Aspri o n several occasions misguiding the

judges hearing the case. It is not Aspri, not Kalakonda and not the co urt that

decides arbitrability or res judicata of the issues presented for arbitration but the

arbitrator who h as been chosen by the parties for arbitration .

Kalakonda's have requested the named arbitrator in the lease to conduct

arb itration who recused himself because he handled the first arb itration and

directed the parities to AAA arbitra tion. Kalako ndas filed for arb itration with AAA,

which after careful and thorough review have acce pted the case and in itiated the

arbitration process and gave deadlines to Kalakondas and Aspri to file claims and

counter claims. If there are no claims, no fee has to be paid.

After the confirmation of the award, Kalakondas have filed their first ever

motion by setting a hearing with the court, to reconsider its decision to confirm the

arbitration award. During the same hearing Aspri brought the ame nde d petition to

obtain a TRO to restrain Kalakondas from filin g arbitration as per the lease but to

file all the disputes in the Bexar County district court, though parties are bound by

arbi tra tion clause. Asp ri also wanted to restrain Kalakondas from setting a hearing

though they had set only one hearing (current one) and declare Kalakonda's as

vexatious litigants though they never filed any su it agains t anyo ne in the whole

country except com ing to the court as and whe n Aspri notifies us to come to th e

court. Aspri never co nsulted Kalakondas to find out if a hearing date is workable or

not. Essentially the TRO is to restrain their basic rights to seek justice and to delay

Page 4
the arbitration at any cost. The Honorable court has simply denied Aspri's motion

for TRO point-bl ank.

At this time having been denied a TRO by th e district court, Aspri resorted to

tricks by filin g a new petition with a new cau se number but with the same relief as in

the denied petition/motion. Aspri expected that a new judge will look at it (as the

judges are assigned on availability basis), in the district court and give a favorable

result. Aspri did not formally notify the Kalakonda's about the TRO hearing

though there was enough time and the hearing was pre planned well ahead, notified

the wrong time to come to the court by email a day before. Kalakonda could not

atte nd the hearing, no court reporters record was requested and the TRO was

obtained ex-parte without citing any irreparable damage. The TRO lacked basic

information of a TRO. This is cause number 2015~CI-01 910( 2) Aspri

immedi ately with in minutes com mun icated the TRO to AAA and asked for stay of

the arbitration proceedings.

In the next hearing of the cause C2, another judge he ard the case and

questioned the legality of Aspri's argume nt to file the disputes regarding a lease that

is subject to arbitratio n in Bexar County courts and stro ngly questio ned the logic of

res-judicata argume nt of Aspri. Sensing that she may deny the TRO, Aspri suggested

going back to th e same judge, Honorable Karen Pozza wh o confirmed the arbitration

award for clarification on her judgement. The judge suggested the parties to

approach Judge Pozza within 30 days for a clarification on her arbitration

co nfirmation if it included other arbitrable d isputes that occurred after th e first

arbitra tion was completed.

04~ 15-00114-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

We certify th at on May 21, 2015, a true and correct copy of this letter was

served on the following counsel of record via Eservice.

Michael D. Conner

Hirsch & Westheim er PC

14 15 Louisiana, 36th Floor

Houston, TX 77002

Mr. Fred erick L. Fuhr,

The Fuhr Law Firm

107 Land ing Blvd., Suite F

League City, Texas 7757 3

Mr. Eric Lipper

Hirsch & W estheim er PC

1415 Louisiana, 36th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

/sd/ Latha Kalakonda

Appellants

Hari Prasad Kalakonda and

Latha Kalakonda

Ms. Donna Kay McKinney (via electronic filing)

Bexar County District Clerk

Page 7