in Re Hari Prasad Kalakonda

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 16, 2015
Docket13-15-00538-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Hari Prasad Kalakonda (in Re Hari Prasad Kalakonda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in Re Hari Prasad Kalakonda, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

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. ____________________________________________________________

ORDER Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes Order Per Curiam

The underlying cause is before this Court on appeal and original proceeding. In

our cause number 13-15-00537-CV, appellant Hari Prasad Kalakonda, proceeding pro

se, appeals an order of the trial court denying arbitration for the claims between

Kalakonda and appellee, Susser Petroleum Operating Company, LLC. In our 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.

In the appeal, Kalakonda has filed a “Motion for Emergency Relief or in the

Alternative to Expedite Appeal.” Through this motion, Kalakonda seeks to stay the

November 17, 2015 trial of the underlying matter pending resolution of the appeal.

Alternatively, Kalakonda seeks an accelerated resolution of the appeal and requests

relief on the merits. In the original proceeding, Kalakonda similarly seeks to stay the

November 17, 2015 trial pending resolution of the merits of the petition for writ of

mandamus.

The Court, having examined and fully considered Kalakonda’s request for

emergency relief in the appeal and original proceeding, is of the opinion that said request

should be granted in these causes. Kalakonda’s motion for emergency relief is hereby

GRANTED, and the trial court proceedings, including trial scheduled for November 17,

2015, are ordered STAYED pending further order of this Court, or until the cases are

finally decided. See TEX. R. APP. P. 29.3, 52.10(b). All other relief sought by

Kalakonda’s motion for emergency relief is denied at this time.

2 The Court requests that the real party in interest, Susser Petroleum Operating

Company, LLC, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief

sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of

ten days from the date of this order. See id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 16th day of November, 2015.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Hari Prasad Kalakonda, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hari-prasad-kalakonda-texapp-2015.