Court Opinion

ID: 4050570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 01:17:44.578327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:11.712359
License: Public Domain

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