Wang v. Yan

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
FUYAN WANG,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CONGHUA YAN
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-1247-P
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RECOMMENDING REMAND
On November 4, 2025, Defendant Conghua Yan (“Defendant”) removed this case from the
360th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas, Cause No. 360-771183-25 [doc. 1]. Having reviewed
the Notice of Removal and the state court papers attached thereto, the Court RECOMMENDS
that the case be REMANDED. As set forth below, this Court finds remand is appropriate due to
the principles of comity and federalism.
Federal courts should abstain from hearing “cases involving state contempt proceedings.”
Kolwe v. Civil & Structural Engineers, Inc., 858 Fed. Appx. 129, 132 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing See
Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 335-37 (1977)). This is true whether the proceeding “is labeled civil,
quasi-criminal, or criminal.” Juidice, 430 U.S. at 335–36. 	Federal court “interference with the
[state] contempt process not only unduly interferes with the legitimate activities of the State, but
also can readily be interpreted as reflecting negatively upon the state courts’ ability to enforce
constitutional principles.” Id. at 336 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A federal
court should abstain from hearing a state contempt proceeding, so long as, the litigants have “‘an
opportunity to present their federal claims in the state proceedings.’” See Daves v. Dallas Cnty.,
Tex., 64 F.4th 616, 629 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 548, 217 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2024)
Case 4:25-cv-01247-P Document 7 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
(emphasis in the original) (quoting Juidice, 430 U.S. at 337)). 	No more is required to invoke
abstention. Juidice, 430 U.S. at 337.
In this case, Defendant has removed a state court contempt proceeding. 	(See Index of
State-Court Documents at 3.) In Texas, contempt proceedings “have been characterized as quasi-
criminal proceedings which should conform as nearly as practicable to those in criminal cases.”
Ex parte Johnson, 654 S.W.2d 415, 420 (Tex. 1983). As such, “Texas courts have consistently
held that alleged constructive contemnors are entitled to procedural due process protections before
they may be held in contempt.” Id. These protections include reasonable notice, the right to the
assistance of counsel, the sixth amendment right to a jury trial for serious contempt, the fifth
amendment right against self- incrimination, and importantly for our purposes a “hearing on [the]
merits of [the] charge with [the] right to present defenses and explanations.” Id. at 420 n.2. As set
forth above, a federal court should abstain from hearing a state contempt proceeding, so long as,
the litigants have “‘an opportunity to present their federal claims in the state proceedings.’” See
Daves, 64 F.4th at 629 (quoting Juidice, 430 U.S. at 337). 	Since the Defendant will have an
opportunity to present any federal defense during a “hearing on [the] merits of [the] charge” in the
contempt proceeding abstention is appropriate. See id; see also Ex parte Johnson, 654 S.W.2d at
420 n.2. Consequently, the Court RECOMMENDS that the above-styled and numbered case be
REMANDED to the 360th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas,
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific
written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has
been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de
Case 4:25-cv-01247-P Document 7 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings,
conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. 	See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). 	Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a proposed
factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until December
9, 2025, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed
and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days
of the filing date of the objections.
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to
the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and hereby
is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge.
SIGNED November 25, 2025.
____________________________
JEFFREY L. CURETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-01247-P Document 7 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>