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-00343-Y 

§ 

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL § 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, § 

MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND § 

ASSOCIATES, INC., JULIE § 

HEDRICK, AND ERIK HARRIS, § 

§ 

 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff. § 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT COUNTERCLAIM 

PLAINTIFF APFA FOR ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISIONS IN THIS CASE 

Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff Association of Professional Flight Attendants 

(“APFA”), by its undersigned counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and Local 

Rules 7.1 and 56, hereby moves for summary judgment on its Counterclaim1 by confirming and 

enforcing the Decisions of the Arbitrator against Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant Robert Ross 

(“Ross”) at issue in this case. 

SUMMARY 

As shown in the accompanying Brief in Support of Summary Judgment,2 there is no 

1

 See APFA’s Counterclaim for enforcement of the Arbitrator’s Decisions against Defendant 

Ross and for other relief. Doc. 8 at PageID 107-117. 

2

 Also pending before the Court is the Union Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Ross’s Complaint 

seeking to vacate the Arbitrator’s Decisions in this case. (doc. 27). This motion will be fully 

briefed and ripe for decision after the Union Defendants file their reply to Ross’s response on or 

before October 5, 2022, as required by this Court’s Order of September 15, 2022. (doc. 40). (The 

Union Defendants previously filed a reply (doc. 34) on August 18, 2022 to a response filed by 

Ross, which response was thereafter un-filed by the Court). 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 42 Filed 09/20/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1079
genuine issue of material fact as to APFA’s Counterclaim and, under Section 301(a) of the 

LMRA, 29 U.S.C. §185(a), APFA is entitled to judicial deference to, and enforcement of the 

Arbitrator’s Decisions as a matter of law. 

In accordance with LR 56.3(a) and (b) and LR 56.5(a), and this Court’s requirements for 

motions for summary judgement, the elements of each claim as to which summary judgement is 

sought are stated under the heading “Summary” on the second page of the accompanying Brief 

in Support of Summary Judgment, followed by the “Statement of the Case” and the statement od 

“Undisputed Material Facts” and the ”Argument” and citation to the legal authorities relied on in 

support of the grant of summary judgment. 

In accordance with this Court’s requirements, on the first page of the Brief, in a separate 

section under the heading "Identification of Live Pleadings,” the live pleadings for each party 

who has appeared in this action are identified and listed by date and docket number., 

In accordance with LR 56.5(c) and LR 56.5 the materials in the record relied on in 

support of the grant of summary judgement are included in a separate, contemporaneously filed 

Appendix, the consecutively numbered pages of which are cited to in the Brief by the 

abbreviation “App.” followed by the relevant page number(s) of the Appendix materials. The 

pertinent passages cited to are either underlined or bracketed in the margin. 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in its Brief and Appendix in Support 

of its Motion for Summary Judgment, AFPA urges the Court to grant summary judgment in its 

This Motion for Summary Judgment, if granted enforcing the Arbitrator’s Decisions, will also 

effectively resolve and dispose of APFA’s Counterclaim against Ross for breach of fiduciary 

duty for engaging in the same misconduct addressed by the Arbitrator (doc. 8 at PageID 116-

117), entitling the Union Defendants to entry of Final Judgement in their favor on all claims and 

defenses as between Plaintiff Ross and the Union Defendants. The same is true for the 

companion case of Vargas v. APFA et al.. CA No. 4-22-430-Y. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 42 Filed 09/20/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 1080
favor on its Counterclaim to confirm and enforce the Arbitrator’s Decisions against Ross and to 

order Ross to comply with the Arbitrator’s Decisions in all respects. 

Date: September 20, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, 

/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 

WILLIAM W. OSBORNE JR.* 

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 42 Filed 09/20/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 1081
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 20th day of September 2022 a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was served on the below listed counsel of record for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant 

Ross by a means permitted by Rule 5(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”). 

KERRI PHILLIPS 

HEATHER ABREU 

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

MICHAEL R RAKE 

Michael R. Rake, Attorney at Law 

PO Box 1556 

Lake Dallas, TX 75065 

Tel.: (940) 498-2103 

Fax: (940) 498-2103 

Email: mrake1@mrakeattorney.com 

/s/ Sanford R. Denison

SANFORD R. DENISON 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 42 Filed 09/20/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 1082