IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS §

§

VS. § ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-343-Y

§ (Consolidated wt 4:22-CV-430-Y)

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL §

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, ET AL. §

§

EUGENIO VARGAS §

§

VS. §

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL §

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, ET AL. §

ORDER STRIKING RESPONSE AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENT

In reviewing Defendants' summary-judgment motion, it has come

to the Court's attention that Plaintiffs' briefing does not adequately

comply with this Court's local civil rules. Specifically, this

Court's rules require that documentary evidence be contained in an

appendix, each page of which "must be numbered legibly in the lower,

right-hand corner." N.D. TEX. L. CIV. R. 56.6(b)(3). In a party's

brief, "[w]hen citing materials in the record, . . . a party must

support each assertion by citing each relevant page of its own or

the opposing party's appendix." Id. at 56.5(c). Reading both rules

in tandem, this means that the party must cite the relevant appendix

by the page number designated in the "lower, right-hand corner." 

Plaintiffs have instead primarily cited to the appendices' page

numbers imprinted by the Court's electronic case management system

("CM/ECF") in the upper, right-hand corner of each page. Often those

page numbers are superimposed onto other writing on the document,

ORDER STRIKING RESPONSE AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENT - Page 1

TRM/chr

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 251 Filed 08/27/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID 8565
such that they are largely illegible.1

 And Plaintiffs have even done

that inconsistently, inasmuch as within the same paragraph Plaintiffs

have sometimes provided the page number from the lower, right-hand

corner of an appendix, as required, but in another citation within

the same paragraph provided the page number imprinted by CM/ECF on

the upper, right-hand corner of the page.2

Similarly, Plaintiffs' response brief wholly fails to comply

with the Court's prior order setting out requirements for response

briefs. In its Order Striking Summary-Judgment Motion and Denying

Motion to Stay Discovery as Moot filed on February 22, 2023 (doc.

76), the Court directed, inter alia, as follows:

(4) include in response briefs only argument and authorities

responsive to the particular motion at issue; similarly,

include in reply briefs argument and authorities responsive

to the response brief to the particular motion at issue;

and

(5) format response briefs similarly to the motion’s

table of contents, so that the Court can easily flip

to responsive arguments to each particular section

of the motion

Plaintiffs have wholly failed to comply with either paragraph. 

Instead, it appears that Plaintiffs have merely attempted to convert

the brief they filed in support of their own motion for partial

summary judgment into a response to Defendants' motion, without 

attempting to comply with either paragraph of the Court's order.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs often cite merely to an appendix, without

1

See, for example, the exhibits to the Declaration of Joshua Black

contained on pages 9-506 of Defendants' appendix (doc. 236-1).

2

See, for example, the first full paragraph on page five of Plaintiffs'

response brief (doc. 246) to Defendants' summary-judgment motion.

ORDER STRIKING RESPONSE AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENT - Page 2

TRM/chr

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 251 Filed 08/27/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID 8566
identifying that appendix by party name or document number. Thus,

the Court is unsure to which appendix Plaintiffs refer. And

frequently, after review of both parties' appendices on the pages

cited by Plaintiffs, neither support the statement in Plaintiffs'

brief to which the appendix citation is appended.3 

While foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds,

consistency in citing appendices certainly helps in this Court's

review of the parties' briefs. And, more importantly, as explained

above, it is required by this Court's local civil rules. Similarly,

the Court's order regarding response briefs was not merely a

suggestion. "Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried

in briefs." U.S. v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991).

Finally, and more ethically problematic to the Court and for

Plaintiffs' counsel, Plaintiffs' briefs often make representations

3

By way of example only, Plaintiffs cite "(App. pp 156-197)" in support

of the statement that "Plaintiffs object to the use and submission of the

Cornwall Jackson 'financial review' on the same grounds as those objections

outlined for the O'Neil 'accounting review.'" (Pls.' Resp. Br. (doc. 246)

11.) The Court has reviewed both Defendants' summary-judgment appendix at

pages 156-197 and Plaintiffs' response appendix at those same pages. But the

Court has found no mention of either Cornwall Jackson," "O'Neil," or an

"accounting review" within those pages. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely

that support for that particular statement spans over forty pages of evidence. 

Plaintiffs are reminded that pinpoint citations to evidence are required. See

N.D. TEX. L. CIV. R. 56.5(c) (requiring, when citing evidentiary materials,

that the party "support each assertion by citing each relevant page of its own

or the opposing party's appendix" that supports the assertion at issue.) 

In a similar vein, Plaintiffs' brief states that "Chinery-Burns pursued

targeted investigations of the Ross Administration's expenses, and demanded

audits of the Ross Administration's expenses, paystubs, 401k contributions and

other financials." Plaintiffs cite the appendix in support of their own

summary-judgment motion, rather than the appendix in support of their response

brief to Defendants' summary-judgment motion. The Court is disinclined to

search through appendices to other motions when a party has submitted an

appendix with its response brief of over six hundred pages. In any event,

after reviewing these pages, the Court discerns no mention of any "targeted

investigations" or "demanded audits" by "Chinery-Burns" in the pages cited by

Plaintiffs. And even if there were, Plaintiffs should have cited to the exact

page(s) that support the statement to which the citation is appended. 

ORDER STRIKING RESPONSE AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENT - Page 3

TRM/chr

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 251 Filed 08/27/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID 8567
 about evidence or the record that are simply inaccurate.4

Plaintiffs' counsel is cautioned that her briefs are subject to the

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and if the Court

determines that she has not complied with that rule, appropriate

sanctions may be imposed. 

As a result, Plaintiffs' response and objection (doc. 242), their

brief in support (doc. 243), and their appendix in support (doc. 244)

are all STRICKEN. Plaintiffs shall have until September 30, 2024,

to correct the noted problems with these documents and file amended

versions with the clerk of the Court (and submit a copy of each to

chambers).5 Failure to timely and completely comply with this order

may result in appropriate sanctions, including the dismissal of

4

For example, Plaintiffs' brief states that "[t]he Arbitrator's decision

also 'found' Vargas misplaced the box of 2017 documents despite Harris

testified he misplaced it," citing "(Doc. 239-8, PAGEID 7063)" in support.

(Pls.' Resp. Br. (doc. 246) 14) (emphasis added.) Again, this document is from

Plaintiffs' appendix to their summary-judgment motion and not their appendix

to their response brief to Defendants' summary-judgment motion. More

troubling, however, is the fact that the document does not say what Plaintiffs

represent. First of all, the cited page does not constitute testimony at 

all, but instead appears to be an email from defendant Harris to Melissa

Chinery and Sandra Lee. In the email, Harris does not state that he misplaced

the box, but instead indicates that it has "inexplicably disappeared from my

custody." 

Similarly, Plaintiffs' brief urges that "this Court ordered Defendants

[to] meet the elements of the doctrine of laches to overcome Plaintiffs'

statute of limitations defense against its LMRDA § 501 breach[-]of[-

]fiduciary[-]duty claim. (Doc. 72, PAGEID 1733)." (Pl.'s Resp. Br. (doc. 246)

11.) Plaintiffs then proceed to point out that Defendants failed to address

this defense in their motion for summary judgment. First of all, the Court

did not order Defendants to meet anything in its prior order. Instead, it

simply denied Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Defendants' LMRDA section 501

counterclaim, noting that Plaintiffs had argued for dismissal on statute-oflimitations grounds but that the doctrine of laches appeared to be applicable

instead. And Defendant is not required to address this defense in its opening 

summary-judgment brief, before Plaintiffs raise it as a defense in their

response brief.

5

If desired, Plaintiffs' counsel may retrieve the Court's copies of

their voluminous and now-stricken appendix from the Court's chambers by making

arrangements with the Court's judicial assistant, Michelle Moon, at 817-850-

6670, to pick the binders up within five days of the date of this order.

ORDER STRIKING RESPONSE AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENT - Page 4

TRM/chr

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 251 Filed 08/27/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID 8568
Plaintiffs' claims or the granting of Defendants' summary-judgment

motion. Defendants may, if they so desire, file an amended reply

brief in accordance with Local Civil Rule 7.1(f).

SIGNED August 27, 2024.

____________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER STRIKING RESPONSE AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENT - Page 5

TRM/chr

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 251 Filed 08/27/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID 8569