1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim

Defendant,

v.

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al., 

Defendants/Counterclaim

Plaintiff.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-343-Y 

Judge Terry R. Means

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR JOINDER 

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2), 20(a)(1)

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Pursuant to Federal Rule[s] of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), 20(a)(1), and local Rules 7.1, 7.2, 

56.1 and 56.5. Plaintiff Ross, by and through the undersigned counsel, files this, his Reply to 

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File its Second Amended Complaint and 

for Joinder Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint against Defendants for violations of LMRDA 

§411 among other federal and state claims on February 22, 2023 [Docket No. 75]. Defendants 

filed their answer and counterclaims against Plaintiff on March 8, 2023 [Docket No. 79]. As set 

forth more specifically, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to file its second amended complaint

and permissive joinder of two additional Defendants: Larry Salas, APFA National Vice-President, 

and Josh Black, APFA National Secretary.

 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 146 Filed 10/30/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 3055
2

A. Facts:

Ross is a member in good standing of the APFA union and the Former National President. 

Plaintiff was charged with violations of the APFA Constitution and policy based primarily on 

alleged overpayments discovered by an accounting firm’s review of the union’s payments under 

Plaintiff’s Transition Agreement. Plaintiff prepared and defended himself in the union’s internal 

dispute procedure (“arbitration”) wherein Plaintiff issued subpoenas for documentation and 

witness testimony from the union. The internal dispute procedures resulted in Plaintiff being 

disciplined by revoking his right to hold elected office, and fined. [PageID 35-58; Docket No.1-

3]. Plaintiff was found to have violated his fiduciary duty, subsequently unlawfully banned for 

life from holding any union-elected position, terminated him as Board member and Base President, 

and disciplined in the amount of $62,558.75. to be paid to the union.

APFA’s National Officers, Julie Hedrick, Erik Harris, Larry Salas, and Josh Black never 

turned over a copy of the Confidential Memorandum to the Board of Directors, the Executive 

Committee or to the Plaintiff during his internal union disciplinary hearing. [PageID, 1470-1484; 

Docket No. 56-1].

1

 He intentionally deceived and misrepresented the pertinent facts to acquire a 

favorable arbitration award against Plaintiff. Plaintiff believes this is a result of his political 

opposition to an upcoming proposed merger between APFA and the Association of Flight 

Attendants (AFA). Plaintiff contends that withholding the Confidential Memorandum from the 

APFA Board of Directors, Executive Committee, and during his union disciplinary arbitration was 

a violation of, among other things, his right to a fair hearing under the Labor Management 

1 Nena Martin was present at Ross’s Union Disciplinary Arbitration, and she testifies herein that she has never seen 

this Confidential Memorandum prior to disclosure on the date of signing the affidavit. This establishes the fact that 

the Confidential Memo was not produced during the Union Disciplinary Arbitration. Furthermore, Martin testifies 

that this document was not produced at the Executive Committee Hearing wherein charges were heard and voted on 

by the Executive Committee referring the charges to an internal Union Disciplinary Arbitration. She was also a 

member of the APFA Board of Directors during the year of 2020 and testifies that the APFA Board of Director’s 

was never given or informed about this document by Erik Harris, APFA National Treasurer. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 146 Filed 10/30/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 3056
3 

Reporting and Disclosure Act § 101(a)(5). It was also a breach of the APFA National Officers 

fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff was not provided the safeguards against improper disciplinary action guaranteed 

under the LMRDA. Withholding documentation and misrepresenting the facts to APFA leadership 

to procure votes in favor of Disciplinary measures, levy fines, and sanction Plaintiff is an

unconscionable violation to Plaintiff’s right to a fair hearing and goes beyond any rational 

explanation that could meet a reasonableness standard. It rises to the level of breach of fiduciary 

duty to the Plaintiff. The result of this conduct is that Plaintiff endured a Union Disciplinary 

Hearing, fined, suffered reputational damage, privacy violations, and suspension from holding any 

official APFA position for the remainder of his life. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages. Plaintiff 

undeniably suffered discipline at the hands of the union as the arbitration award prohibited his right 

to hold APFA office again and has fined Plaintiff for monetary damages. 

B. Request to Grant Plaintiff Leave to file Amended Complaint

The Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend its 

complaint and allow him to join additional parties. 

Attached to the original Motion as Appendix 1 - 14 is the email produced by the Defendants

supporting the facts asserted herein. Defendants were asked for these documents a year prior to 

filing its motion to amend, however Defendantsfailed to produce these documents until September 

1, 2023. It was only through Eugenio Vargas’ representative, Heidi Morgan, that Plaintiff

discovered this email existed on the same date that Plaintiff had a deadline to amend the complaint. 

Upon filing Plaintiff’s second Motion to Amend, Ms. Morgan testified to this fact. [PageID, 1470-

1484; Docket No. 56-1]. As a result of her testimony, Ms. Morgan threatened with Article VII 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 146 Filed 10/30/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 3057
4 

Disciplinary Charges, and the Union passed a resolution designed to prevent Ms. Morgan from 

complying with Plaintiff’s subpoena. 

Defendants’ Counsel argues that Plaintiff should have amended the complaint and joined 

additional parties during the period allowable under the scheduling order. Plaintiff was prejudiced 

by Defendant’s withholding of documentation from the original discovery requests and Vargas 

learned of these documents on the date of the joinder and amendment deadline—wherein Ross’s 

counsel learned on the same date of the existence of these documents and informed Ross4. 

Therefore, if the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to amend, it will allow Plaintiff to be prejudiced 

for Defendants’ lack of cooperation with the Discovery process and reinforce Defendants’ strategy 

to withhold documentation to stifle the legal process. Considering Defendants continue to 

withhold document and stifle the discovery process to date—as evidenced by Plaintiff’s four 

discovery motions pending before this court--it does not seem logical to allow this conduct to limit

Plaintiff’s claims. 

Defendants further argue that Plaintiff has dilatory motivations in seeking this amendment 

and joinder. However, seeking the amendment and joinder prior is the result of Defendants 

withholding documentation, not the result of any dilatory motives. In point of fact, Plaintiff 

immediately attempted to amend and file affidavits demonstrating the existence of this evidence 

despite Defendants’ lack of cooperation in the discovery process and production of documentation. 

C. Conclusion

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court 

grant Plaintiff leave to amend its original complaint and file a Second Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff requests such other and further relief to which he may be justly entitled to receive.

 Respectfully submitted,

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 146 Filed 10/30/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 3058
5 

K.D. PHILLIPS LAW FIRM, PLLC

By: /s/ Kerri Phillips

Kerri Phillips

Texas Bar No. 24065906 

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com

6010 W. Spring Creek Parkway

Plano, Texas 75024 

Fax: (940) 400-0089

For Service of Filings: 

notice@KDphillipslaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that true and correct copy of this document was sent to all counsel of record, 

hereunder listed via ECF filing on this the 30th day of October 2023. 

/s/Kerri Phillips 

Kerri Phillips

Jeffrey Bartos

Guerrieri, Bartos, & Roma, P.C. 

1900 M Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20036

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

Email: jbartos@geclaw.com

Charlette Matts

In-House Counsel for APFA

1004 West Euless Blvd

Euless, TX 76040

Tel: (682) 301-8454 

Cmatts@apfa.org

James Sanford

4803 Gaston Avenue

Dallas, TX 75249-1020 

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

0001 

Email jim@gillespiesanford.com

Email: joe@gillespiesanford.com

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 146 Filed 10/30/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 3059
6 

Michael Rake

PO Box 1556 

Lake Dallas, TX 75065-1556 

Tel: (940) 498-2103 Fax: (940) 498-2103 

Email: mrake1@mrakeattorney.com

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 146 Filed 10/30/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 3060