Wang v. Yan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
F UYAN W ANG ,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 4:25-cv-1247-P
CONGHUA Y AN ,
Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 11, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. ECF
No. 7. The FCR recommended the Court remand the present action to
the 360th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas. ECF No. 7 at 2.
Defendant filed an Objection to the FCR on December 9, 2025. ECF No.
10. The Court accordingly conducted a de novo review of the FCR.
As detailed below, the Court will REMAND all claims, ADOPT the
reasoning in the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, and OVERRULE Plaintiff’s
Objections.
BACKGROUND
This case arises from a petition in state court to enforce a marital
property division. Specifically, for the enforcement of the Final Decree
of Divorce, which included the division of certain retirement benefits.
Defendant Conghua Yan removed this case from the 360th District
Court, Tarrant County, Texas, on November 4, 2025.
LEGAL STANDARD
A Magistrate Judge’s FCR regarding a dispositive matter is reviewed
de novo if a party timely objects. FED. R. CIV . P. 72(b)(3). The district
Case 4:25-cv-01247-P Document 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
court may then accept, reject, or modify the recommendation or findings,
in whole or in part. Id.
ANALYSIS
Throughout the brief, Defendant makes a variety of objections. See
ECF No. 10. However, after thoroughly reviewing the record, it is
sufficient 	for 	the 	Court 	to 	only 	address 	the 	objection 	related 	to
abstention as it is fully dispositive of the case.
The Supreme Court has clarified that abstention applies to cases “in
which the State’s contempt process is involved,” recognizing that the
contempt power “lies at the core of the administration of a State’s
judicial system.” Judice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 335–37 (1977). Federal
interference with a state court’s contempt process “unduly interferes
with the legitimate activities of the State” and can be understood as
“reflecting 	negatively 	upon 	the 	state 	courts’ 	ability 	to 	enforce
constitutional principles.” Id. at 336 (citation modified). Consistent with
Judice, the Fifth Circuit has reiterated that federal courts should
abstain from hearing proceedings premised on state-court contempt
enforcement. See Kolwe v. Civ. Structural Eng’rs, Inc., 858 F. App’x 129,
132 (5th Cir. 2021). That principle applies regardless of whether the
contempt 	proceeding 	is 	characterized 	as 	“civil, 	quasi-criminal, 	or
criminal.” Judice, 430 U.S. at 335–36.
Abstention is appropriate here because the removed matter is, in
substance, a state-court contempt proceeding seeking enforcement of a
state-court 	order, 	and 	Defendant 	has 	an 	adequate 	opportunity 	to
present any federal issues in that forum. See Daves v. Dallas Cnty., 64
F.4th 616, 629 (5th Cir. 2023). Texas contempt proceedings are “quasi-
criminal” and provide robust procedural protections, including a merits
hearing with the right to present defenses and explanation. Ex parte
Johnson, 654 S.W.2d 415, 420 & n.2 (Tex. 1983).
Defendant, therefore, may raise any federal defenses—including the
objections that federal law limits or precludes the requested relief—in
the contempt proceeding itself and through the state appellate process.
See id. Defendant attempts to pierce the style and form of the contempt
proceedings by alleging that the state-court proceedings are merely
Case 4:25-cv-01247-P Document 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
disguised as such. See ECF No. 10 at 4. But the Fifth Circuit has advised
against doing just that. “We expressly declined to adjudicate the merits
of a motion filed in state court and styled a motion for contempt’ because
‘to do so would transgress the very principle of federalism [that] the rule
[that contempt proceedings are non-removable] seeks to protect.” Kolwe,
858 F. App’x at 133 (alteration in original) (quoting Asher v. A G
Edwards & Sons, 272 F. App’x 357, 357–58 (5th Cir. 2008)). Because
this case falls within the contempt proceeding category where comity
and federalism concerns are at their apex, the Court will remand
consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
CONCLUSION
Having conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s FCR
and Defendant’s Objections, the Court REMANDS all claims to the
360th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas, ADOPTS the reasoning
in 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	FCR, 	and 	OVERRULES 	Defendant’s
Objections.
SO ORDERED on this 6th day of February 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
REGINALEA KEMP ,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 4:23-cv-00841-P
REGIONS BANK ET AL .,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Having considered the Motion
and applicable docket entries, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
SO ORDERED on this 18th day of September 2023.
______________________________________________
Mark T. Pittman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-01247-P Document 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>