1

No. _____________________-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIRST OR FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

__________________________________________________________________ 

IN RE AMERICAN FISHERIES, INC. 

Original Proceeding from the 157th Judicial District Court, 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. 2013-29749 

The Honorable Randy Wilson 

__________________________________________________________________ 

AMERICAN FISHERIES, INC.’S 

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF

 Xenos Yuen 

 State Bar No. 2223250 

 xy@yuenlawoffice.com [email] 

 Andrew Gass 

 State Bar No. 07747800 

 ag@yuenlawoffice.com [email] 

 Diane M. Guillerman 

 State Bar No. 24012740 

 dmg@yuenlawoffice.com [email] 

 SIEGEL, YUEN & HONORE, P.L.L.C. 

 6100 Corporate Drive, Suite 580 

 Houston, Texas 77036 



 Telephone: (713) 541-6256 

 Fax: (713) 541-9409 



 COUNSEL FOR RELATOR, 

 AMERICAN FISHERIES, INC. 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00304-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/6/2015 12:00:00 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/4/2015 9:26:24 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk ------------------------ VOID DC ------------------------ FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/6/2015 12:00:00 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

TO THE HONORABLE FIRST OR FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.10, American Fisheries, 

Inc., relator, files this Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief to accompany its 

petition for Writ of Mandamus and in support of this motion would show the court 

as follows:

1. On March 23, 2015, the Honorable Randy Wilson entered an oral 

order striking the deposition of Relator’s key witness Feng Shao, who was deposed 

in Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China, without any stated reason as to why 

such sanction was being imposed.

2. At this hearing Plaintiff orally requested the Court to reconsider its 

motion in light of the severity of the sanction. Judge Wilson requested Plaintiff 

submit a written motion to reconsider his ruling.

3. Plaintiff complied with the court’s request and submitted Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Reconsider Order to Strike Feng Shao’s Deposition Testimony; and 

simultaneously filed a request for an Emergency Hearing on the matter. 

4. Unfortunately, the court did not address Plaintiff’s request for the 

emergency hearing.

5. Finally, on April 2, 2015, at the Pre-trial Conference, the Court 

entertained Relator American Fisheries, Inc.’s request to reconsider the court’s 
3

order striking Feng Shao’s deposition testimony and denied Plaintiff’s motion by 

declining to reverse its earlier ruling.

6. We are now on the eve of trial with the underlying case set for trial on 

Monday, April 6, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. 

7. Relator seeks a stay of trial on the merits to allow this appellate court 

to resolve the issues raised in Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus concerning 

the exclusion of evidence which goes to the heart of Relator’s case, effectively 

denies Relator reasonable opportunity to prosecute the case and defend against 

counter-claims, and is an imposition of unwarranted death penalty or other severe 

sanctions against Relator thus making the trial a waste of judicial resources.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

8. Feng Shao is a third party defendant, sued by both Plaintiff and 

Defendants in this case for various causes of actions. Defendant Feng Shao is a 

citizen of the People’s Republic of China and resides in that country. Defendant 

Feng Shao has already answered in the lawsuit, pro se. Plaintiff, with permission 

of the trial court and at great expense, arranged and conducted the oral deposition 

of Feng Shao. 

9. Mr. Shao is a former representative of Plaintiff’s and his testimony is 

of paramount importance to Plaintiff’s case, particularly to defend against the
4

counterclaims alleged by the Defendants, National Honey Inc., dba National 

Commodities Company, Jun Yang and his wife, Lin Huang Yang (collectively, 

“NHI Defendants”). His testimony regarding main issues in the case cannot be 

obtained through any other witness. 

10. Further, NHI Defendants have alleged various civil causes of action, 

including civil RICO, fraud, and other torts entwined with the criminal conviction 

of Defendant Jun Yang -- in the severed case, 2013-29749A – and the deposition 

conducted in Hong Kong was ordered by the Court to cover those issues as well. 

11. Plaintiff, after discovering the collusion between Feng Shao and the 

NHI Defendants as a result of the NHI Defendant’s allegations and discovery, then 

filed claims against Feng Shao for breach of fiduciary duty and other contractual 

violations, for exceeding his authority, his ultra vires acts, which were not 

authorized by the Plaintiff before Feng Shao left his position with AFI. Indeed, 

Feng Shao exceeded his official capacity and committed breach of his fiduciary 

duties when he formed Linghai (USA) Inc., which he testified was at the behest of 

and with the assistance of Defendant Lin Yang and, possibly, Jun Yang.

12. By striking Defendant Feng Shao’s oral deposition, which is critical to 

Plaintiff’s defense against the NHI Defendants’ counterclaims, it is the equivalent 

of imposing a “death penalty” sanction against Plaintiff (and against Feng Shao), 
5

even though it is an interlocutory order, because an appeal is inadequate under the 

circumstances of this case. By striking the deposition, Plaintiff is left with no 

testimony to refute the self-serving testimony of Lin Yang and Jun Yang – the only 

other individuals with direct knowledge of the circumstances regarding Linghai 

and the NHI Defendants’ other allegations. Indeed, even if the jury decides the 

NHI Defendants’ did, in fact, breach the contract (the primary issue in the case), 

because Feng Shao is implicated in every corner of the counterclaims, the NHI 

Defendants’ need only point to the “empty chair” to avoid paying what they rightly 

owe to AFI. It is Plaintiff’s belief that striking Defendant Feng Shao’s testimony is 

devastating to Plaintiff’s defenses to the Defendants’ counterclaims.

FOR THESE REASONS, American Fisheries, Inc., relator in this case, 

respectfully requests this court to grant temporary relief by issuing an order staying 

the trial of this case until this court resolves the issues raised in relator American 

Fisheries, Inc.’s petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief from that portion of 

Respondent’s March 24, 2015 Order striking the deposition testimony of Feng 

Shao, as well as, any other relief to which it may be justly entitled. 

Respectfully submitted, this 4th day of April, 2015. 

SIEGEL, YUEN & HONORE, P.L.L.C.

By: /s/ Xenos Yuen 

Xenos Yuen
6

State Bar No. 2223250

xy@yuenlawoffice.com [email]

Andrew Gass

State Bar No. 07747800

ag@yuenlawoffice.com [email]

6100 Corporate Drive, Suite 580

Houston, Texas 77036

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF,

AMERICAN FISHERIES, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.10 (a), this is to certify 

that on April 3, 2015, counsel for Relator notified counsel for the Defendants in 

open court of Relator’s intent to file this motion.

/s/ Xenos Yuen ___

Xenos Yuen

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This motion contains 831 words, counted consistent with the Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 9.4(i)(3).

/s/ Xenos Yuen ___

Xenos Yuen
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a, this is to certify that a true and correct copy 

of the foregoing Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief was served upon 

counsel for the Defendants, M.H. Cersonsky, Cersonsky, Rosen & García, P.C., 

1770 St. James Place, Suite 150, Houston, Texas 77056, on this the 3rd day of 

April, 2015.

/s/ Xenos Yuen ___

Xenos Yuen