Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

EUGENIO VARGAS,

 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

v.

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al., 

 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-430-Y

 Judge Terry R. Means

APFA DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM

Pursuant to Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P., and this Court’s Initial Scheduling Order (doc. 77), 

Defendants the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (“APFA”), Julie Hedrick and Erik 

Harris (herein, “the APFA Defendants”) hereby move to leave to amend their Answer and the 

APFA’s Counterclaim. The proposed Amended Answer and Counterclaim is attached hereto as 

Exhibit A.

Counsel for APFA has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, who states that Plaintiff 

opposes this motion.

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to reflect, in the Amended Answer, the facts 

as currently understood regarding Plaintiff’s allegations; to update the affirmative defenses; and 

to amend the counterclaims by withdrawing one cause of action (the contract claim under 29 

U.S.C. § 185(a)), and refining the allegations of the remaining counterclaim (the fiduciary duty 

claim under 29 U.S.C.§ 501). The gravamen of the fiduciary duty counterclaim remains the 

same. The APFA Defendants respectfully submit that the proposed amendment will not cause 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 108 Filed 08/30/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 3704
Page 2

any delay or undue prejudice to any party, and that the motion for leave to amend should 

therefore be granted.

Rule 15 provides that “The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). As further articulated by the Fifth Circuit: 

“Whether leave to amend should be granted is entrusted to the sound discretion of 

the district court, and that court's ruling is reversible only for an abuse of 

discretion.” Heinze v. Tesco Corp., 971 F.3d 475, 485 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting 

Pervasive Software Inc. v. Lexware GmbH, 688 F.3d 214, 232 (5th Cir. 2012)). 

But a district court may only deny leave “for a substantial reason, such as undue 

delay, repeated failures to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice, or futility.” Stevens 

v. St. Tammany Par. Gov't, 17 F.4th 563, 575 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting U.S. ex rel. 

Spicer v. Westbrook, 751 F.3d 354, 367 (5th Cir. 2014)). Absent such factors, 

leave to amend should be “freely given.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Residents of Gordon Plaza, Inc. v. Cantrell, 25 F.4th 288, 302–03 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied,

143 S. Ct. 100 (2022).

The APFA Defendants’ Proposed Amended Answer and Counterclaim readily meets this 

standard. There is no delay, because the present motion is filed within the deadline established 

by the Court in its Scheduling Order. There have been no prior failures to cure deficiencies in 

the pleadings. Nor would amendment prejudice Plaintiff in any way -- the proposed amended 

pleading would narrow the issues and streamline the litigation by removing one cause of action 

while retaining another which has been present since the case began. Finally, amendment would 

not be futile -- the remaining counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty arises under Section 501 

of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 501, and this Court has already rejected Plaintiff’s effort to dismiss 

that counterclaim, see Order Partially Granting Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim (doc. 70 at 2-4).

Accordingly, the APFA Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their motion 

for leave to amend their Answer and Counterclaim.

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 108 Filed 08/30/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 3705
Page 3

Dated: Respectfully Submitted,

 /s/ James D. Sanford

JAMES D. SANFORD

Tex. Bar No. 24051289

JOSEPH H. GILLESPIE

Tex. Bar No. 24036636

Gillespie Sanford LLP

4803 Gaston Ave.

Dallas, TX 75246

Tel.: (214) 800-5111; Fax.: (214) 838-0001

Email: jim@gillespiesanford.com

Email: joe@gillespiesanford.com

JEFFREY A. BARTOS (pro hac vice)

D.C. Bar No. 435832

Guerrieri, Bartos & Roma, PC

1900 M Street, N.W. Suite 700

Washington, DC 20036

Tel.: (202) 624-7400; Fax: (202) 624-7420

Email: jbartos@geclaw.com

Counsel for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff 

Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and 

Defendants Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris

CHARLETTE L. MATTS (pro hac vice)

Tex. Bar No. 24133870

Association of Professional Flight Attendants

1004 W. Euless Blvd.

Euless, TX 76040

Tel.: (682) 301-8454

Email: Cmatts@apfa.org

Counsel for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff 

Association of Professional Flight Attendants

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 108 Filed 08/30/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 3706
Page 4

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that on August 30, 2023, counsel for the APFA Defendants conferred with Kerri 

Phillips, counsel for Plaintiff, by email regarding this motion. Ms. Phillips stated that Plaintiff 

opposes this motion.

/s/ Jeffrey A. Bartos_____

JEFFREY A. BARTOS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on Wednesday, August 30, 2023, I electronically submitted this document to 

the clerk of the court for the U.S. District for the Northern District of Texas using the court’s 

electronic case filing system. The electronic case filing system sent a “Notice of Electronic 

Filing” to the following individuals, who have consented to accept this Notices as service of this 

document by electronic means:

KERRI PHILLIPS

K.D. Phillips Law Firm, PLLC 

6010 W. Spring Creek Parkway 

Plano, TX 75024

Phone: (972) 327-5800

Fax: (940) 400-0089

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com

notice@KDphillipslaw.com

/s/ James D. Sanford

JAMES D. SANFORD

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 108 Filed 08/30/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 3707