1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS, § 

§ 

 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, § 

§ 

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-000343-Y

§ 

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL § 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS § 

MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND § 

ASSOCIATES, INC, JULIE § 

HEDRICK, AND ERIK HARRIS, § 

§ 

 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff. § 

JOINT STATUS REPORT AND PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN 

Pursuant to the Court’s Order of July 7, 2022 (doc. 26) and in accordance with Rule 26(f) 

of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), counsel for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant 

Robert (Bob) Ross (“Plaintiff”), counsel for Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Association of 

Professional Flight Attendants (“APFA”) and for Defendants Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris 

(collectively, “Union Defendants”), and counsel for Defendant McGaughey, Reber and 

Associates, Inc. (“Defendant McGaughey”), conferred on July 21, 2022,1 and now jointly file this 

status report and proposed discovery plan. Each of the subjects listed under Part B. of the Court’s 

Order is addressed in separately numbered paragraphs below. 

1

 The conference was conducted by video conference. Heather Abreu participated in the 

conference as counsel for Plaintiff Robert (Bob) Ross (“Plaintiff”), Sanford R. Denison, and 

Margot A. Nikitas, participated in the conference on behalf of Union Defendants APFA, Julie 

Hedrick and Erik Harris, and Michael R. Rake participated in the conference on behalf of 

Defendant McGaughey. 
2 

JOINT STATUS REPORT TOPICS 

1. Statement of the Nature of the Case and Contentions of the Parties. 

This case arises from internal union charges by APFA members filed against 

Plaintiff Robert (Bob) Ross, filed pursuant to the APFA Constitution, for alleged financial 

misconduct during his tenure as National President of APFA, resulting in a Decision and 

Order by Arbitrator Ruben Armendariz (“Decision and Order”). 

A. Plaintiff’s Statement of Contentions: 

Plaintiff Ross alleges the following: 

1) An Arbitration Award was procured in violation of Federal Arbitration Act, 

section 10. Plaintiff moves the court to vacate it on the basis that the 

Defendants withheld pertinent evidence to the claims at issue in the 

arbitration, the award was procured by fraud, or undue means, there was 

arbitrator bias and misconduct, and the arbitrator exceeded his powers.

2) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to provide a full and fair hearing to 

Plaintiff during Plaintiff’s Arbitration which establishes a violation of the 

Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act §101(a)(5) as the union and 

its officers failed to afford Plaintiff the opportunity to have a full and fair 

hearing. 

3) Plaintiff asserts that the union officers breached their fiduciary duty to the 

Plaintiff in failing to disclose documents pertinent to Plaintiff’s Arbitration 

in violation of federal Labor laws and Texas Common Law. 
3 

4) Plaintiff asserts Defendants breached the Union’s Constitution provisions on 

protecting the privacy, maintaining due process and equal representation of 

its members. 

Plaintiff/Counter-defendant Ross’s Defenses to the Counterclaim are that 

the Arbitrator’s decision cannot be enforced, as it was procured by fraud, there was 

arbitrator bias and arbitrator misconduct, and the arbitrator exceeded his powers. 

Plaintiff/Counter-defendant maintain that they did not breach their fiduciary duties. 

Further, they maintain that the Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has exceeded the statute 

of limitation on their claims. 

B. Union Defendants’ Statement of Contentions: 

Union Defendants’ Defenses: As their affirmative defenses, the Union 

Defendants, in addition to denying most of Plaintiff’s factual assertions, assert the 

following: 

1) Plaintiff’s suit to vacate the Decision and Order of Arbitrator Armendariz 

is specifically premised upon a single basis for assertion of subject matter 

jurisdiction – Section 101(a)(5) of the Labor Management Reporting and 

Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. §411(a)(5) – which does not 

provide subject matter jurisdiction for judicial review of the Arbitrator’s 

Decision and Order; 

2) Plaintiff’s various challenges to the merits of the Arbitrator’s Decision and 

Order, both direct and implicit, violate the federal labor law axiom that, 

except in rare circumstances not alleged or present here, the courts defer to 

arbitration decisions; 
4 

3) The arbitration process in this case, as governed by the APFA Constitution, 

is likewise subject to, and protected by the federal principle of judicial 

noninterference in internal union governance; 

4) Several of Plaintiff’s allegations are indirect challenges to the Arbitrator’s 

Decision and Order and/or the Arbitrator’s continuing jurisdiction over the 

remedial process and are therefore preempted under settled labor law 

principles; 

5) Plaintiff’s filing of this lawsuit violated the mandatory precondition in the 

APFA Constitution requiring exhaustion of internal union remedies before 

filing suit; and 

6) Defendants Hedrick and Harris, as national officers of the Union, are not 

proper parties in this lawsuit. 

Union Defendants’ Counterclaims: As counterclaims to Plaintiff’s suit, 

Defendant APFA has asserted the following: 

1) For the Court’s enforcement of the Decision and Order of Arbitrator 

Armendariz pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations 

Act, 29 U.S.C. §301(a); 

2) For breach of fiduciary duty by Plaintiff Ross under Section 501(a) of the 

LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §501(a), for his financial misconduct as National 

President of the APFA, as determined by the Arbitrator’s Decision and 

Order; and 
5 

3) For breach of fiduciary duty by Plaintiff Ross under Texas common law for 

his financial misconduct as National President of the APFA, as determined 

by the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. 

C. Defendant McGaughey Statement of Contentions: 

(1) Defendant sets forth its contentions in its Original Answer and repeats those 

contentions as follows: Defendant admits it published to credit reporting 

agencies that Plaintiff was in collections. Plaintiff did dispute the debt, but 

Defendant has no knowledge of when Plaintiff discovered the debt. After 

Plaintiff disputed the debt, and Defendant properly investigated the debt and 

Plaintiff’s dispute. The debt was verified by APFA and confirmed that the 

debt was valid. Plaintiff was provided with and sent all available 

information Defendant had at the time; and 

(2) Plaintiff’s own statement exonerates Defendant’s liability and therefore, 

Defendant denies that it violated any terms of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

2. Jurisdiction and Venue.

There are no challenges to venue. 

Plaintiff does not challenge the Court’s jurisdiction over the claims and causes of 

action asserted by the parties to this case. 

The Union Defendants, for the reasons set forth in their statement of defenses to 

Plaintiff’s claims in paragraph 1.B above, and in their pending motion to dismiss (doc. 27) 

filed on July 21, 2022, challenges the Court’s jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims premised 

on the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §411(a)(5) – as that statute provides no subject matter 

jurisdiction for judicial review of the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. The Union 
6 

Defendants also challenge the Court’s jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendants Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris, because under §301(b) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. 

§301(b), individual union officers are not personally liable for acts in their capacity as 

union officers, in which capacity they have been sued herein. 

Defendant McGaughey does not challenge the Court’s jurisdiction over the claims 

and causes of action asserted by the parties to this case. 

3. Matters Requiring Conference with the Court. 

There are no matters which require conference with the Court at this time. 

4. Likelihood That Other Parties Will Be Joined. 

It is not anticipated that additional parties will be joined, nor is it likely that a motion 

for leave to join any additional parties will be filed. 

5. Rule 26(a)(1)(A) Initial Disclosures. 

The parties will make the disclosures required under Rule 26(a) by August 4, 2022 

in accordance with Rule 26(a)(1)(C). 

 6. (a) Discovery Subjects. 

(1) Plaintiff Ross. Plaintiff Ross proposes that discovery be allowed as discovery 

was not conducted fairly and adequately during the arbitration period and documents were 

concealed or not produced by the defendant, and therefore need to be produced during 

discovery . Plaintiff needs the opportunity to depose witnesses, and to examine the process 

that took place during the arbitration, which are essential to proving Plaintiff’s claims. Any 

limitation on discovery would hamper Plaintiff in their effort s to prove their claims and 

defenses and would be unduly prejudicial. Plaintiff requests discovery through January 

15, 2023, to allow time for depositions. 
7 

(2) Union Defendants. The Union Defendants submit that all discovery beyond 

the exchange of Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures should be stayed pending the Court’s 

ruling on the Union Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) motion to dismiss filed on July 21, 

2022 (doc. 27) as this Court “lack[s] subject-matter jurisdiction” over all claims asserted 

by Plaintiff against the Union Defendants in his Complaint, and for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. The motion to dismiss will be fully brief and ripe for 

decision no later than August 18, 2022 when the Union Defendants file their reply2 to any 

response Plaintiff may file by the August 11, 2022 due date for his response in opposition 

to dismissal. To allow discovery to proceed with regard to Plaintiff’s claims seeking to 

vacate the Arbitration Decision and Award over which this Court has no jurisdiction would 

be a waste of the parties and judicial resources. Upon dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for 

lack or jurisdiction, discovery could then be allowed to proceed limited to the APFA’s 

counterclaim to enforce the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order, which discovery would be 

narrowly focused on facts relevant only to enforcement of the Arbitrator’s decision. 

The Union Defendants propose that discovery with respect to their counterclaim 

against Plaintiff and all other claims and defenses od the parties, if any, which remain 

pending after the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss close on December 15, 2022. 

With respect to the subjects, plan and schedule for that discovery, it is the Union 

Defendants’ position, pursuant to well settled precedents requiring, as a matter of law, 

judicial deference to and enforcement of the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order, that no 

2

 The Union Defendants intend to file a motion to stay discovery pending the Court’s ruling on 

the motion to dismiss at the same time as they file their reply to Plaintiff’s response to the motion 

to dismiss. 
8 

discovery regarding the merits of the Article VII charges against Plaintiff Ross is necessary 

or appropriate. Therefore, the Union Defendants will oppose any attempt to reopen the 

merits of the Article VII charges against Ross, including through discovery. 

The Union Defendants' position is that, to the extent discovery in this case is 

needed, that discovery should be limited and focused on those subjects relevant to the 

Union Defendants’ counterclaim for enforcement of the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. 

As part of the remedy ordered by the Arbitrator, he directed APFA to obtain an audit of 

Ross’s records during his term of office as APFA National President, and ordered Ross to 

repay to APFA the amount of any charges deemed inappropriate by the auditor. (Decision 

and Order at 23.) Accordingly, as relevant to enforcement of the Arbitrator’s Decision and 

Order, limited discovery may therefore be required as necessary to complete the audit 

ordered by the Arbitrator in order to determine the amount of any improper charges by 

Ross. As stated above, the Union Defendants believe that this limited discovery can be 

completed on an expedited basis, but to allow sufficient time to complete the audit and any 

follow-up discovery the audit may reveal necessary, the Union Defendants request 

discovery extend through December 15, 2022. 

(3) Defendant McGaughey. Defendant McGaughey proposes that discovery 

close on December 15, 2022. 

(b) Discovery Completion Date: 

(1) Plaintiff Ross. For the reasons stated in paragraph 6.(a)(1) above, Plaintiff 

requests discovery close on January 15, 2023. 

(2) Union Defendants. For the reasons stated in paragraph 6.(a)(2) above, the 

Union Defendants request discovery close on December 15, 2022. 
9 

(3) Defendant McGaughey. Defendant McGaughey proposes discovery close 

on December 15, 2022. 

(c) Phased, Limited, or Focused Discovery: 

The parties agree that discovery does not need to be conducted in phases, but the 

parties differ on whether discovery should be stayed pending ruling on the Union 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss and whether discovery should be limited or focused: 

(1) Plaintiff Ross. Plaintiff Ross submits that for the reasons stated in paragraph 

6.(a)(1) above, discovery should not be limited or focused. 

(2) Union Defendants. The Union Defendants submit, for the reasons explained 

in paragraph 6.(a)(2) above, that discovery should stayed pending the Court’s ruling on the 

motion to dismiss and should thereafter be limited only to those subjects relevant to the 

Union Defendants’ counterclaim for enforcement of the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. 

As such, it is the position of the Union Defendants that any attempt to open discovery 

regarding the merits of the Article VII charges against Plaintiff Ross and the Arbitrator’s 

Decision and Order is neither necessary nor appropriate and the Union Defendants will 

oppose any such attempted discovery. 

(3) Defendant McGaughey. Defendant McGaughey submits that discovery as 

to McGaughey be limited to those matters relevant to issues regarding the Fair Debt and 

Collection practices of Defendant McGaughey. 

7. Other Changes or Limitations on Discovery Imposed by the Federal or Local Rules. 

A. Plaintiff’s Position: For the reasons stated in paragraph 6.(a)(1) above, 

Plaintiff Ross does not believe that any changes or limitations on discovery need to be 

made as imposed by federal or local rule. 
10 

B. Union Defendants’ Position: For the reasons set forth in paragraphs 

6.(a)(2) and (c)(2) above, the Union Defendants submit that discovery should be stayed 

pending the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss and should thereafter be limited only 

to subjects relevant to the Union Defendants’ counterclaim for enforcement of the 

Arbitrator’s Decision and Order and that discovery regarding the merits of the Article VII 

charges against Plaintiff Ross or the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order is subject to objection 

and should not be permitted as being neither relevant or as reasonably calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. 

C. Defendant McGaughey’s Position: Defendant McGaughey submits that 

discovery be limited to those matters relevant to issues regarding fair debt collection 

practices of Defendant. 

8. Other Orders under Rules 26(c),16(b), or 16(c). 

The parties are not aware of the necessity of any other orders under Rule 16 (a) or 

(c) or 26 (c).

9. Jury Demand. 

This is a non-jury case. 

10. Referral to Magistrate Judge. 

The parties do not consent to try this case before a U.S. Magistrate. 

11. (a) Settlement assessment. 

The parties agree that the prospects for settlement are unlikely; however, all parties 

are open to discussion of all options to resolve this case. 

(b) Settlement negotiation status.
11 

(1) Plaintiff Ross. Plaintiff Ross submits that they are open to mediation after 

adequate time for discovery has passed. They are open to settlement discussions at any 

time. 

(2) Union Defendants. The Union Defendants submit that no meaningful 

progress has been made toward settlement. The Union Defendants were not parties to the 

arbitration proceeding at issue and have no power or authority to agree to alter or amend 

the terms of the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. Therefore, the terms of any possible 

settlement of this case to which the Union Defendants could agree are constrained by and 

must be consistent with the terms of the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. Ross has failed 

and refused to comply with the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order that he 1) repay to APFA 

a $5,436.47 overpayment; 2) repay to APFA $8,106.13 for leasing an apartment at the Bear 

Creek Complex where he had no intention of occupying; 3) repay to APFA all of the 

Arbitrator’s fee; and 4) repay to APFA $3,637.00 for all of the furniture he had purchased 

and delivered to his residence located in South Lake, Texas. (Arbitrator’s Decision and 

Order at 23-24.) As long as Ross continues to fail and refuse to comply with the Arbitrator’s 

Decision and Order, a settlement of this case to which the Union Defendants could agree 

is unlikely, if not impossible. That said, the Union Defendants have been and remain open 

to discussing with Plaintiff Ross an agreed resolution of this case which is consistent with 

the Arbitrator's Decision and Order, fulfills all of APFA’s obligations as ordered by the 

Arbitrator in his Decision and Order, and which achieves Plaintiff’s full compliance with 

the terms of the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. While the Union Defendants stand ready 

to enter into such further discussions with Ross immediately, if a specific date is required 

for such further settlement discussions, the Union Defendants propose they take place 
12 

beginning on the first date all parties are available after the Court issues a scheduling order 

in this case or within the time period specified in paragraph 11.(c) below. 

(3) Defendant McGaughey. Defendant McGaughey submits that it is open to 

mediation after adequate time for discovery has passed. It is open to settlement discussions 

at any time. 

(c) Settlement conference date. 

The parties and their counsel have been unable to date to agree on a specific date 

to meet face-to-face to discuss settlement, but will continue to confer for the purpose of 

agreeing on a date for the conference. 

Plaintiff Ross made the proposal today to schedule the settlement conference for 

either October 7 or 14. 

The Union Defendants had proposed at the Status Conference two dates in late 

July which were not agreed to by Plaintiff. The Union Defendants subsequently proposed 

either September 21 or 22 for the settlement conference at APFA’s offices, but Plaintiff 

has not agreed to either of those dates. Plaintiff’s proposal to meet on October 7 or 14, 

having only been communicated today to counsel for the Union Defendants, cannot be 

confirmed by the Union Defendants as to their availability on those dates before the filing 

of this report. 

Defendant McGaughey and their counsel have indicated they will make 

themselves available for the settlement conference on whatever date, place and time that 

the Union Defendants and Plaintiff agree. 
13 

12. Mediation.

(1) Plaintiff Ross: Plaintiff Ross submits that mediation is appropriate in this 

matter after the close of discovery. 

(2) Union Defendants. The Union Defendants submit that this case is not 

amenable to mediation because the matters in dispute have already been subject to 

arbitration and the sole issue in this case is whether the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order 

should be enforced, such that mediation would not be effective to achieve resolution of this 

case. 

(3) Defendant McGaughey. Defendant McGaughey submits that mediation is 

appropriate in this matter after the close of discovery. 

13. Dondi decision:

Counsel for all parties affirm that they have read this Court’s Dondi decision. 

14. Any other matters relevant to the status and disposition of this case.

None. 

Date: August 3, 2022 Respectfully Submitted 

/s/ Heather Abreu 

KERRI PHILLIPS 

Texas Bar No. 24065906 

HEATHER ABREU* 

Texas Bar No. 24122577 

K.D. Phillips Law Firm, PLLC 

5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300 

Plano, Texas 75024 

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com 

Email: Heather@KDphillipslaw.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff Robert (Bob) Ross
14 

/s/ Sanford R. Denison

SANFORD R. DENISON 

Tex. Bar No. 05655560 

Baab & Denison, LLP 

6301 Gaston Ave., Suite 550 

Dallas, TX 75214 

Tel.: (214) 637-0750 

Fax.: (214) 637-0730 

Email: denison@baabdenison.com 

MARGOT A. NIKITAS* 

Illinois Bar No. 6309782 

General Counsel 

Association of Professional 

 Flight Attendants 

1004 W. Euless Boulevard 

Euless, TX 76040 

Tel. (817) 540-0108 ext. 8108 

Fax. (817) 355-1919 

Email: MNikitas@apfa.org 

WILLIAM W. OSBORNE* 

D.C. Bar No. 912089 

Osborne Law Offices P.C. 

5335 Wisconsin Avenue N.W., Suite 440 

Washington, D.C. 20015 

Tel.: (202) 243-3200 

Fax: (202) 686-2977 

Email: b.osborne@osbornelaw.com 

Counsel for Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff 

Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and 

Defendants Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris 

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

/s/ Michael R Rake 

MICHAEL R RAKE 

Tex. Bar No. 16487600 

Michael R. Rake, Attorney at Law 

PO Box 1556 

Lake Dallas, TX 75065 

Tel.: (940) 498-2103 
15 

Fax: (940) 498-2103 

Email: mrake1@mrakeattorney.com 

Counsel for Defendant McGaughey, Reber and 

Associates, Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 3, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

served on counsel of record for all parties via the Court’s ECF system. 

DATED: August 3, 2022 /s/ Sanford R. Denison 

Sanford R. Denison