In re Yu Zhou and Hang Yu Appeal from 151st District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed, Motion Denied, and Memorandum Opinion filed October 5, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-21-00424-CV IN RE YU ZHOU AND HANG YU, Relators ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 151st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020-43015 MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 29, 2021, relators Yu Zhou and Hang Yu filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this Court to compel the Honorable Mike Engelhart, presiding judge of the 151st District Court of Harris County, to vacate two orders: (1) an order dated March 15, 2021, directing Rongyan Lu be deposed remotely by Zoom while she is located in the People’s Republic of China; and (2) an order dated March 15, 2021, denying relators’ second motion to show authority. On August 3, 2021, real party in interest filed a motion to dismiss relators’ petition, arguing that one issue involves a fact finding not reviewable by mandamus and the other issue is moot. On August 6, 2021, relators removed the underlying case from state district court to federal court, where it is now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, civil action no. 4:21-cv-02559. Once a notice of removal is filed, it “shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d); see also In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619, 624 (Tex. 2007). Following removal, the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over the action. See In re Laza, No. 12-17-00280-CV, 2018 WL 271833, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 3, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (per curiam); J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Del Mar Props., L.P., 443 S.W.3d 455, 460 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.). Here, relators’ removal to federal court vested that court with exclusive jurisdiction over the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d); Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d at 624; Laza, 2018 WL 271833, at *1; J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 443 S.W.3d at 460. Thus, we lack jurisdiction over this proceeding and relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. We further ORDER real party in interest’s motion to dismiss DENIED as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Spain. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
