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-00343-Y 

§ 

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL § 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al., § 

 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff. § 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

EUGENIO VARGAS, § 

 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, § 

§ 

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-00430-Y 

§ 

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL § 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al. § 

 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff. § 

APFA’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION 

 TO APFA’S MOTION TO FILE SURREPLY RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE 

THE COURT’S DISMISSAL OF THEIR CLAIMS 

Defendants Counterclaim Plaintiff Association of Professional Flight Attendants 

(“APFA”), et al. respectfully submit this Reply to the Responses1 by Plaintiffs Ross and Vargas 

opposing APFA’s Motions to File Surreply Briefs2 responding to new legal arguments raised in 

connection with Plaintiffs’ motions3 to vacate the Court’s Orders of October 27, 20224

dismissing their claims and to amend their complaints. This single, combined reply is submitted 

1 Ross Doc. 68; Vargas Doc. 66. Citation to the filings in Ross v. APFA, et al., No. 4:22-CV00343-Y will be made by “Ross Doc. __” and to the filings in Vargas v. APFA, et al., No. 4:22-

CV-00430-Y by Vargas Doc. __” where the number referenced will be to the ECF docket 

number of the document cited. 

2 Ross Doc. 63, 64; Vargas Doc. 61, 62.

3

 Ross Doc. 55, 56; Vargas Doc. 55, 56. 

4

 Ross Doc. 51; Vargas Doc. 52. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 67 Filed 01/06/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 3198
2 

to underscore that the recent submissions by Ross and Vargas, which share the same 

misstatements law, and are both subject to being stricken by the Court as improper surreply 

submissions attempting to belatedly reargue APFA’s pending motions for summary judgement to 

enforce the arbitration decisions against them. 

We begin, however, with a roadmap of the recent submissions to the Court by Ross and 

Vargas in the hope of maintaining focus on the important pending issues before the Court: 

The Court’s Orders of October 27, 2022 (Ross Doc 51; Vargas Doc. 52) dismissed 

Plaintiffs’ claims “for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” in both cases, and ordered that “This 

case shall proceed only as to the APFA’s counterclaim.” As of November 9, 2022, APFA’s 

motions for summary judgment on its counterclaims to enforce the arbitration decisions against 

Ross and Vargas, which would fully dispose of both cases, were fully briefed by the parties and 

they remain pending for the Court’s resolution.5

Rather than await the Court’s ruling, Ross and Vargas immediately began filing a series 

of pleadings inventing new legal defenses to the motions for summary judgment in the hope of 

strengthening their positions and/or prolonging or detouring this litigation, including filing 

motions attempting to vacate the Court’s dismissal of their claims to vacate the arbitration 

5 Ross Docs. 42, 43, 44, 52, 53; Vargas Docs. 43, 44, 45, 53, 54. APFA’s pending summary 

judgment motions, filed on September 9, were based on the enforcement of union constitutions pursuant 

to Section 301(a) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), and the substantial judicial deference due arbitration 

decisions under that statute (Ross Doc. 42, 43; Vargas Doc 43, 44). After obtaining extensions of time, 

Ross and Vargas filed opposing briefs and, in contrast to their recent post hoc submissions, Plaintiffs 

argued (i) that the arbitrator’s decisions were union disciplinary proceedings not third-party arbitration 

decisions; (ii) that the facts were in dispute; and (iii) that there were legal deficiencies in the APFA’s 

breach of fiduciary allegations (Ross Doc. 52-1, pp.11-19; Vargas Doc. 53-1, pp.11-19). Those are the 

arguments properly submitted by Plaintiffs in timely opposition to enforcement of the arbitration 

decisions, in contrast to their new arguments submitted at this late date and without requesting, much less 

obtaining the Court’s permission. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 67 Filed 01/06/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 3199
3 

decisions and seeking to file new amended complaints6 and motions to dismiss APFA’s 

counterclaims.7

In Plaintiffs’ reply briefs8 with respect to both motions, they raised new legal defenses to 

dismissal of their claims and to APFA’s motions for summary judgment which were not 

previously raised in the briefing on those motions. Moreover, these new legal arguments raised 

in Plaintiffs’ reply briefs were not raised in either their motions to vacate the Court’s Orders 

dismissing their claims9 or motions to dismiss APFA’s counterclaims.10 And, as these new 

arguments were first asserted by Plaintiffs after APFA had filed its responses to each respective 

motion, APFA has had no opportunity to respond to these new arguments.11 Of necessity, APFA 

has had to seek leave to respond and oppose those new arguments and file surreply briefs 

addressing the newly-constructed legal arguments by Ross and Vargas.12 These post hoc efforts 

by Ross and Vargas to reconstruct their cases have resulted in the cumulative filing of twentyfour (24) additional pleadings13 in the two cases in the seven weeks since November 9, 2022, 

when APFA’s motions for summary judgment to enforce the arbitrations were fully briefed and 

pending resolution by the Court. 

We regret further burdening the Court with yet another brief. But, Ross’s and Vargas’s 

most recent response briefs to the Court on December 29 opposing APFA’s motions to file 

6

 Ross Docs. 55, 56, 58, 62, 63, 64; Vargas Docs. 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62. 

7

 Ross Docs. 59, 60, 65; Vargas Docs. 58, 59, 63. 

8 Ross Docs. 62, 65; Vargas Docs. 60, 63.

9

 Ross Docs. 55, 56; Vargas Docs. 55, 56.

10 Ross Doc 59; Doc 58.

11 Ross Doc, 58, 60; Vargas Docs. 57, 59. 

12 Ross Docs. 63, 64, 66, 67; Vargas Docs. 61, 62, 64, 65.

13 Ross Docs. 55-56, 58-60, 62-68; Vargas Docs. 55-66. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 67 Filed 01/06/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 3200
4 

surreplies to address these new arguments, once again repeat these same newly-invented legal 

arguments not submitted in opposition to either the pending motions for summary judgment to 

enforce the arbitration decisions against them or in their subsequent motions to vacate the 

Court’s dismissal orders and motions to dismiss APFA’s counterclaims.14 And, once again, 

repeat these new arguments without requesting, much less obtaining, the Court’s permission to 

do so. 

The post hoc legal argument offered once again by Ross and Vargas -- that the decision 

in Adams-Lundy v. APFA, 792 F.2d 1368 (5th Cir. 1994) provides jurisdictional support for their 

attempts to vacate the arbitration decisions against them -- is a substantive argument nowhere to 

be found in either their responses in opposition to APFA’s motions for summary judgment15 or 

their motions to vacate the Orders dismissing their claims16 or motions to dismiss APFA’s 

counterclaims.17 Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument is based on a mischaracterization of the actual 

holding in Adams-Lundy, which is inapposite to the issue of enforcement of the arbitration 

decisions – as explained in the Surreply Briefs which APFA has moved for leave to file.18

Enforcement of these arbitration decisions arises under LMRA Section 301(a), as a basis for 

enforcing the arbitration process under the APFA Constitution,19 and pursuant to the judicial deference 

principles under that statute.20 In contrast, and as previously noted and not disputed by Ross and Vargas, 

14 Ross Doc. 68; Vargas Doc. 66.

15 Ross Doc. 52-1; Vargas Doc. 53-1. 

16 Ross Docs. 55, 56; Vargas Docs. 55, 56.

17 Ross Doc. 59; Vargas Doc. 58.

18 Ross Docs. 63, 64 at pp. 3-4; Vargas Docs. 61, 62 at pp. 3-4.

19 Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C §185(a).

20 Ross and Vargas have never acknowledged, much less distinguished the axiom of “exceedingly 

deferential” judicial review of arbitration standards: the decision is to be enforced as long as the 

arbitrator's award draws its essence from the parties' agreement. "An arbitrator exceeds his [or her] 

authority when he [or she] acts 'contrary to express contractual provisions.'" Kemper Corp. Servs., Inc. v. 

Computer Scis. Corp., 946 F.3d 817, 822 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Beaird Indus., Inc. v. Local 2297, Int'l 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 67 Filed 01/06/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 3201
5 

the question before the Fifth Circuit in Adams-Lundy was whether the federal courts had jurisdiction 

under a different statute, Title I of the Landrum-Griffin Act,21 to review an arbitration decision. 792 F. 2d 

at 1370. There is not one word anywhere in that decision regarding enforcement of arbitration decisions 

under Section 301(a). And Ross and Vargas have mis-cited Adams-Lundy as a new jurisdictional ground 

for vacating the arbitration decisions, not as merely an additional case cite for some earlier argument 

made in opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment. 

CONCLUSION 

APFA respectfully urges the Court to proceed with resolution of the pending motions for 

summary judgment enforcing the arbitration decisions against Ross and Vargas. Allied Waste Systems 

Inc. v. Teamsters Local 767, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43035, 2007 WL 1703634 at *11-13, 19-21 

(N.D. Tex. 2007) (J. Means) (awarding attorney fees for baseless challenge to an arbitrator’s 

decision). 

Date: January 6, 2023 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Sanford R. Denison

SANFORD R. DENISON 

Tex. Bar No. 05655560 

Baab & Denison, LLP 

6301 Gaston Ave., Suite 1403 

Dallas, TX 75214 

Tel.: (214) 637-0750; Fax.: (214) 637-0730 

Email: denison@baabdenison.com 

Union) and is not merely "his [or her] own brand of industrial justice," the award is legitimate. United 

Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 36 (1987) (quoting Steelworkers, 363 U.S. at 596). 

"An arbitrator exceeds his [or her] authority when he [or she] acts 'contrary to express contractual 

provisions.'" Kemper Corp. Servs., Inc. v. Computer Scis. Corp., 946 F.3d 817, 822 (5th Cir. 

2020) (quoting Beaird Indus., Inc. v. Local 2297, Int'l Union, 404 F.3d 942, 946 (5th Cir. 2005)). Lalo, 

LCC v. Hawk Apparel, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 722218, 2022 WL 1173801at *6-7 (N.D. Tex. 2022) 

(J. Lindsey). 

21 Section 101 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. §411. As 

the courts have held, even where the union has conducted the arbitration, “(a) local union's action or 

inaction in the processing of a grievance is not ‘discipline’ or punishment within the meaning of the 

LMRDA.” Hebert v. Gen. Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 270, 2004 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 13406 at *12-17 (E.D. La. 2004); Camporeale v. Airborne Freight Corp., 732 F. Supp. 358, 

366 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd without op., 923 F.2d 842 (2nd Cir. 1990). And Ross and Vargas also fail to note 

that their assertion of jurisdiction under the LMRDA to review the arbitration decisions at issue has 

already been rejected by the Court in dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims. (Ross Doc 51; Vargas Doc. 52).

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 67 Filed 01/06/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 3202
6 

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 6th day of January, 2023 a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was served on the below listed counsel of record 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-00430-Y Document 67 Filed 01/06/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 3203