1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

EUGENIO VARGAS, § 

§ 

 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, § 

§ 

v. § 

§ Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00430-Y

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL § 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, JULIE § 

HEDRICK, AND ERIK HARRIS, § 

§ 

 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs. § 

UNION DEFENDANTS’ REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING 

THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

In accordance with the Court’s Initial Scheduling Order (Doc. 74) the parties participated 

in a formal settlement conference at which the parties and their counsel appeared in person to 

discuss settlement of this case. Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff Association of Professional 

Flight Attendants (“APFA”), and Defendants Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris (collectively, “Union 

Defendants”) file this written report in accordance therewith: 

(a) The date on which the settlement conference was held: 

The conference was held on March 29, 2023 in a conference room reserved at the offices 

of Caddo Office Reimagined, 2201 Spinks Rd., Flower Mound, Texas 75022. This report is 

timely filed as it is being filed within seven (7) days after the date of the conference. 

(b) The persons present at the conference: 

On behalf of Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant Robert (“Bob”) Ross: 

1. Eugenio Vargas; 

2. Kerri Phillips, K.D. Phillips Law Firm, PLLC, participated as counsel for 

Eugenio Vargas. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 81 Filed 04/05/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3287
2 

On behalf of the Union Defendants: 

1. Julie Hedrick, APFA National President; 

2. Erik Harris, APFA National Treasurer; 

3. APFA participated through APFA Staff Attorney Charlette Matts, APFA 

National President Julie Hedrick and APFA National Treasurer Erik Harris, who 

each had authority to bargain in good faith on behalf of Defendant APFA; and 

4. Sanford R. Denison, Baab & Denison, LLP, participated as counsel for the 

Union Defendants. 

(c) A statement regarding whether meaningful progress toward settlement was made: 

During the conference the parties and their counsel discussed various options for a resolution 

of this case as between Plaintiff and APFA; however, despite the individual defendants’ 

improper joinder as parties, no separate proposal for their dismissal apart from APFA was 

received from Plaintiff. And, through counsel, Plaintiff Vargas took the position that he would 

not consider or agree to a settlement or other resolution of his case apart from a settlement of 

Ross v. APFA, et al., No. 4:22-cv-00343-Y (U.S. Dist. Ct. N. D. Tex., Fort Worth Div.), a 

companion case in which Plaintiff Ross is represented by the same counsel as Plaintiff Vargas. 

Despite these efforts to explore different settlement alternatives, the parties remain far apart 

with respect to settlement terms which would be acceptable to all parties and, from the Union 

Defendants’ perspective, which would be feasible as not requiring actions which violate APFA’s 

Constitution, applicable law or the rights of APFA’s other members. 

A report of this nature is normally not the appropriate forum in which to discuss the parties’ 

settlement proposals or discussions. However, in the conference report filed by Plaintiff’s 

counsel (Doc. 80) and in public statements by Robert Ross,1 Plaintiff has improperly disclosed 

1

 Mr. Ross is the plaintiff in the companion case to the instant case by Mr. Vargas (i.e., Ross v. APFA, et al.,

No. 4:22-cv-00343-Y (U.S. Dist. Ct. N. D. Tex., Fort Worth Div.)) and in that case - represented by the 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 81 Filed 04/05/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID 3288
3 

the purported nature and substance of those discussions and proposals, and in such public reports 

and forums has mischaracterized the nature and content of those proposals and discussions. The 

Union Defendants therefore feel compelled to respond lest the public record reflect a false and 

inaccurate narrative of the Union Defendants’ position and the parties’ proposals and 

discussions. 

Initially, it should be noted that each of the substantive proposals by Plaintiff to settle this 

case required the Union Defendants’ agreement to vacate the Arbitration Decision at issue -- 

despite the fact Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 55-1) no longer seeks vacatur of the 

Arbitrator’s Decision and would leave that Decision in place and in effect. Moreover, Plaintiff’s 

settlement proposals were simply not feasible as they contained terms which would require the 

Union Defendants to take actions which -- even assuming they had the power and authority to 

take such actions, which they do not -- would violate the APFA’s Constitution and governing 

documents, violate the rights of APFA’s other members, and violate applicable federal labor 

law, including the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C 

§401, et seq. and the Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C 

§185.2 As the Union Defendants explained to Plaintiff and his counsel during the conference, 

and as the Union Defendants previously stated in their Joint Status Report (Doc. 21) filed earlier 

in this case: 

The Union Defendants were not parties to the arbitration proceeding at issue and 

have no power or authority [under the APFA Constitution] to agree to alter or 

same counsel as Mr. Vargas -- he has filed a Settlement Conference Report (Ross Doc. 84) which contains 

similar mischaracterizations of the nature and content of the Union Defendants’ positions and the parties’ 

proposals and discussions regarding options for case resolution. 

2 The Union Defendants believe it would be inappropriate in this forum to further detail the specific terms, 

nature and substance of Plaintiff's proposals to settle other than to state that in the Settlement Conference 

Report filed by his counsel (See Doc. 80), Plaintiff mischaracterizes the nature not only of his own 

proposals, but of APFA's position and proposals for options to resolve this case. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 81 Filed 04/05/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3289
4 

amend the terms of the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. Therefore, the terms of 

any possible settlement of this case to which the Union Defendants could agree 

[i.e., which would be feasible] are constrained by and must be consistent with the 

terms of the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. [Therefore, a]s long as Vargas 

continues to . . . fail and refuse to comply with the Arbitrator’s Decision and 

Order, a settlement of this case to which the Union Defendants could agree is 

unlikely, if not impossible. 

(Doc. 21 at p. 9). While that must necessarily be the Union Defendants’ position regarding any 

agreed resolution of this case, as they further stated in the Joint Status Report: 

That said, the Union Defendants have been and remain open to discussing with 

Plaintiff Vargas an agreed resolution of this case which is consistent with the 

Arbitrator's Decision and Order, fulfills all of APFA’s obligations as ordered by 

the Arbitrator in his Decision and Order, and which achieves Plaintiff’s full 

compliance with the terms of the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. 

Id. Accordingly, while the Union Defendants believe that during the conference the parties and 

counsel were able to engage in an instructive, if not constructive, discussion of their respective 

positions and views as to the terms of an acceptable and feasible resolution of this case, the 

parties were not able to make meaningful progress towards a settlement. 

(d) A statement regarding the prospects of settlement before trial. 

The Union Defendants have been and remain open to continuing to explore with Vargas 

options for an agreed resolution of this case which is consistent with and does not run afoul of 

applicable law, the APFA’s Constitution or the rights of its other members. However, as of this 

date, because the parties remain far apart with respect to settlement terms which are acceptable to 

all parties and which are feasible as consistent with APFA’s obligations under law and its 

Constitution, the Union Defendants do not believe that the prospects for settlement prior to trial 

are good. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 81 Filed 04/05/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID 3290
5 

Date: April 5, 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 

WILLIAM W. OSBORNE* 

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 

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Counsel for Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff 

Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and 

Defendants Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 5th day of April 2023 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 

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

 /s/ Sanford R. Denison 

SANFORD R. DENISON 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 81 Filed 04/05/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID 3291