1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FT. WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS, 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

V.

§

§ 

§

Case No. 4:22-CV-00343-Y 

ASSOCIATION OF

PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT

ATTENDANTS, MCGAUGEY,

REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

JULIE HEDRICK, ERIK HARRIS

Plaintiff, Counterclaim Plaintiff

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

 § 

REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR JOINDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) 

AND 20(a) 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, Robert “Bob” Ross, by and 

through his undersigned counsel, respectfully files this Reply to Defendant’s Response to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and For Joinder. Plaintiff 

initiated this case to recover lost damages suffered from a union disciplinary award issued in an 

arbitration decision adverse to Plaintiff—a disciplinary hearing in which APFA National Officers 

withheld documents from and misrepresented pertinent and exculpatory information to the union 

governing bodies to achieve the votes needed to procure a disciplinary arbitration and an award 

against Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed this action alleging infringement of his right to a fair hearing under 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 93 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID 2085
2 

LMRDA among other claims (Docket 01). The Union filed counterclaims asserting breach of 

fiduciary duty under LMRDA, as well as a claim under §301a of the LMRA for an injunction to 

enforce the union’s constitutional arbitration award (Docket 08). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave 

to file a Second Amended Petition and Joinder of additional parties. (Docket 88). Defendant filed 

its response to the Motion for Leave to Amend and Motion for Joinder on May 5, 2023. (Docket 

92). Now, Plaintiff comes before the court and asserts this Reply to Defendant’s Response to 

Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint and Joinder. 

Plaintiff reaffirms that Defendants, Larry Salas and Josh Black are proper parties and 

requests this court to grant its Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and Joinder. 

I. APPLICABLE LAW

 

A. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 20 (a), “persons may join in one action if: (1) they 

assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the 

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) any question of law 

or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)). This case asserts 

claims against the union as well as the officers for multiple tort claims. 

B. Rule 20 permits the joinder of defendants if, among the other requirements, "any right to 

relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative . . . Rule 20(a)(2). . . . the fact that 

the defendants are independent actors does not preclude joinder as long as their actions are part of the same 

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1356 

(Fed. Cir. 2012). Nova Cas. Co. v. Guzman (N.D. Tex. 2021). Furthermore, the Northern District Federal 

Court held that ". . . an initial appraisal of the facts indicates that a possibly necessary party is absent, the 

burden of disputing this initial appraisal falls on the party who opposes joinder.' Id. (quoting PulitzerPolster v. Pulitzer, 784 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5th Cir. 2006))." New Hope Hosp., LLC v. EH Nat'l Bank (N.D. 

Tex. 2016).

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 93 Filed 05/19/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID 2086
3

C. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course 

within twenty-one days after serving it or, if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 

twenty-one days after service of a responsive pleading or twenty-one days after service of a Rule 12(b), 

whichever is earlier. Otherwise, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written 

consent or the court's leave. Rule 15 provides that the court should freely give leave to amend when justice 

so requires. 

1. Defendant failed to disclose APFA’s insurance and bonding company in bad 

faith. 

Though IMA Financial confirmed coverage of the Defendants and Plaintiff, Plaintiff 

recently discovered that IMA Financial is the insurance broker for APFA—not the insurer. 

Therefore, Plaintiff hereby notifies the court of this recent disclosure, and concedes IMA Financial 

is not the proper party to the action before this court. 

APFA failed to disclose in any discovery to the Plaintiff the identity of the insurance 

carrier. Defendants failed to disclose this information in its required Initial Disclosures, failed to 

ensure an S-1 filing is made with the Department of Labor indicating the amount and name of the 

surety bonding company (29 CFR § 409.2), objected to a subpoena for such information, and 

ignored Plaintiff’s direct emails on point requesting this documentation—despite its duty to 

disclose any documents used to create the public LM-2 Report (29 U.S.C. 431(c)).

It is an undisputed fact that APFA is covered by liability insurance and its leadership is 

bonded per federal law. (29 U.S.C. 402(i)). Every union covered by the LMRDA is subject to the 

bonding requirements. (29 U.S.C. 502). “Every officer... who handles funds or property of a 

covered union or trust must be bonded, including: elected union officers.” Id. The officers stated 

under penalty of perjury in APFA’s LM-2 Report that its leadership is bonded. (See APFA Public 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 93 Filed 05/19/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID 2087
4 

LM-2 Filing from 2017-2022).1

Plaintiff was insured, not only through the APFA’s professional liability insurance as a 

union officer, but APFA’s officers are insured under a surety bond, including Plaintiff, who signed 

and paid for the surety bond personally. APFA is insured for a variety of claims for purposes of 

protecting its membership’s funds. See Id.2 However, continued concealment of the insurance 

provider prevented notice to the insurance company, and exposed APFA’s membership to the 

costs and potential losses from this suit. APFA should be compelled to disclose this information 

to protect its membership from the losses suffered at the hands of this leadership. 

Plaintiff contests Defendants’ counsel’s assertion that Plaintiff is trying to gain an 

advantageous position for settlement stated in their Response. (Docket No. 92, PAGEID 2070). 

The court should note: the Ross Administration are the only party to offer settlement to date; the

Ross Administration offered three options for settlement; two of the offers provided no monetary 

recovery by any party (not even for legal fees); Defendants declined all three offers; Defendants 

made no counteroffers. Defendants contend in its Settlement Conference Statement that it must 

pursue a court order enforcing this arbitration award on behalf of the charging party—Melissa 

Chinery-Burns—as she threatens to sue the union leadership in the event of settlement. The court 

should further note that Melissa Chinery-Burns is married to the AFA General Counsel, Joe Burns 

(the attorney on loan from the competing union hired by APFA to negotiate its new collective 

bargaining agreement with American Airlines, Inc.). These facts clearly illustrate the political 

motivations involved. Melissa Chinery-Burns controls the outcome of APFA’s new collective 

1 Question 14, in APFA’s LM-2 Filings can be found here: 

https://olmsapps.dol.gov/query/orgReport.do?rptId=840723&rptForm=LM2Form; 

https://olmsapps.dol.gov/query/orgReport.do?rptId=773865&rptForm=LM2Form; 

https://olmsapps.dol.gov/query/orgReport.do?rptId=731533&rptForm=LM2Form; 

https://olmsapps.dol.gov/query/orgReport.do?rptId=709508&rptForm=LM2Form; 

https://olmsapps.dol.gov/query/orgReport.do?rptId=679829&rptForm=LM2Form; 

https://olmsapps.dol.gov/query/orgReport.do?rptId=650505&rptForm=LM2Form. 2 See Id. Question 14, p. 3 APFA LM-2 Filings. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 93 Filed 05/19/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID 2088
5 

bargaining agreement and has threatened to sue APFA leadership to date. Consequently, 

settlement is impossible until the court resolves APFA’s claims against Plaintiff regardless of the 

merit to Plaintiff’s claim. Until then, Melissa Chinery-Burns and AFA retain control over APFA, 

its leadership, and its Board of Directors. 

2. National union officers Larry Salas, the current National Vice-President, and 

Josh Black, the current National Secretary, are the proper parties to this suit 

because the same nexus of facts apply to these parties, their participation was only 

recently discovered, and damages are sought jointly and severally with all 

Defendants. 

First and foremost, the Court’s order issued on February 22, 2023 as Docket No. 72 states 

that “it appears clear that the APFA's Constitution is a contract between labor organizations within 

the purview of LMRA section 301.” Whether this is merely dicta, or a final and binding decision 

is unknown, however this fact is in direct opposition to the evidence available on the court record,3

on public record4

, as well as in the APFA Constitution.5 (APFA Const. Art. I, Sec. II; APFA Const. 

Art. XII, Sec 1). 

Counsel for Defendants perpetuate this misrepresentation in direct violation of their ethical 

3 See Docket No. 33-13, PAGEID 442, APFA Hotline signed by President Julie Hedrick announcing the Ross and 

Vargas Arbitration Awards which states “As an independent union, we have no parent body to scrutinize our actions 

and must hold ourselves to the strictest standards.”

4 Note: Question 11b of APFA’s LM-2 Filings. The last 6 years of APFA LM-2 filings can be found here: 

https://olmsapps.dol.gov/query/orgReport.do?rptId=840723&rptForm=LM2Form; 

https://olmsapps.dol.gov/query/orgReport.do?rptId=773865&rptForm=LM2Form; 

https://olmsapps.dol.gov/query/orgReport.do?rptId=731533&rptForm=LM2Form; 

https://olmsapps.dol.gov/query/orgReport.do?rptId=709508&rptForm=LM2Form; 

https://olmsapps.dol.gov/query/orgReport.do?rptId=679829&rptForm=LM2Form; 

https://olmsapps.dol.gov/query/orgReport.do?rptId=650505&rptForm=LM2Form. 

5 See Docket No. 33-11, PAGEID 381, APFA Const. Art. I, Sec. 2B, entitled, Objective of the APFA, states “To 

protect the individual and collective rights of the members of the APFA and to promote their professional interest 

and image.” Indicating a contract between APFA and the membership, rather any dual union. See also, APFA 

Const. Art. XII, Sec. 1 “Any action to affiliate, merge or federate the APFA with any other labor organization. . . 

shall be subject to prior approval by: A. a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Executive Committee, B. a two-thirds 

(2/3) majority of the Voting Board of Directors, and C. an affirmative vote by a majority of those active members in 

good standing who return valid ballots.” Outlining what is required for the union to elect a dual union structure and 

merge with another Union—like AFA.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 93 Filed 05/19/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID 2089
6 

duty of candor before this court (Rule 3.03 - Candor Toward the Tribunal, Tex. R. Disc. Prof'l. 

Cond. 3.03). This court has been misled, again, and entered an order holding the union is a dual 

union. The consequence of finding this fact is that the breach of the union constitution falls under 

the purview of federal law for breach of duty of fair representation under 301 LMRA §185. Breach 

of duty of fair representation claims can only be asserted against the union itself, and the officers 

individual liability could be preempted. (Lee v. Cytec Industries, Inc., 460 F.3d 673, 679-680 (5th 

Cir. 2006). Defendants’ counsel continues to misrepresent the facts before this court with each 

assertion of a preemption defense on behalf of the union officers. Despite these 

misrepresentations, the argument that the union is liable, while the officers are not is one ripe for 

conflicts of interest dispute by the APFA membership. 

Despite misleading this Court about the structure of APFA as a dual union, Plaintiff must 

amend its petition if the court rules the union is a dual union. If this is the case, Plaintiff’s breach 

of union constitution claim must convert from a breach of contract claim to a 301 LMRA § 185 

claim (breach of duty of fair representation) to ensure compliance with the applicable law on point. 

Therefore, in the interest of justice, Plaintiff must amend his petition to remain in compliance with 

the law, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.6 Whether Defendants’ new counsel 

decides to correct this misrepresentation and disavow themselves of any unethical assertions and 

sanctionable offenses remains to be seen; however, until then, Plaintiff must proceed accordingly. 

6 The Court should note that the individual flight bases have no constitution, no financial documents, no individual 

membership, and have never filed any required reports with the U.S. Department of Labor. In fact, the San Francisco 

Base, in which Bob Ross was elected Base President, was recently closed without a vote by the membership, or any 

filing by APFA with the U.S. Department of Labor. American Airlines, Inc. closed the offices in this city for the 

airlines. The public announcement of American’s office closing is public information: 

https://www.kron4.com/news/american-airlines-to-close-sfo-base-displacing-over-400-flightattendants/#:~:text=The%20Flight%20Attendant%20base%20at,new%20home%20base%20or%20retire. If the 

bases were unions, American Airlines, Inc. is not able to dictate which unions do and do not exist—Defendants legal 

counsel are aware of these facts, yet clearly violated their ethical duties by perpetuating this lie before this court—a 

notable sanctionable offense—and continue to do so in their most recent pleading. Plaintiff reserves his right to file 

a motion for sanctions on this matter at this time. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 93 Filed 05/19/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID 2090
7

In terms of the Defendants arguments regarding joinder of the additional officers, 

Defendants argue the validity of the claims asserted rather than whether Plaintiff has met the 

standard required for joinder and amendment of its complaint. The Court should take note that 

Defendants fail to deny any of the facts asserted by Plaintiff thus far. In fact, Defendants fail in 

their entirety to address the purpose behind the motion at issue (save joinder of the insurance 

company)—the joinder of the additional two union officers. Instead, Defendants argue whether 

the claims against the additional parties are valid. Defendants go so far as to assert the affirmative 

defenses, like statute of limitations or preemption, as though this was the appropriate pleading to 

address such issues. Defendant fails to address whether it is appropriate to join the two officers 

and amend the complaint, as that is the question before the court at this time. Defendants’ 

arguments are better suited to a motion to dismiss, rather than to argue against joinder of the 

additional parties and if the claims should be overcome—the court should consider these questions 

after joining the two officers and allowing Defendants to file a motion to dismiss. At this time, 

the court should consider whether Plaintiff’s claims hold no merit, but Defendant cannot argue the 

merit of the claims on a motion for joinder and amendment. Furthermore, considering Plaintiff 

may not assert new arguments against Defendants within a reply, Plaintiff will save these 

arguments for such time as the court is called to consider these questions—when the Defendants 

move this court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. 

It is appropriate to include the two additional officers based on the discovery of new 

evidence during the pending litigation as stated in the Vargas Affidavit attached to the original 

Motion for Joinder. The facts asserted are similar to those facts asserted against the other 

officers—as the officers conspired against Plaintiff for political purposes. The 5th Circuit has long 

held that:

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 93 Filed 05/19/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID 2091
8 

The Rules allow joinder in such a case as the present; indeed in order to prevent costly, 

slow multiplicitous litigation (with the danger of inconsistent results), they demand it. The 

Supreme Court has recently held that "Under the Rules, the impulse is toward entertaining 

the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of 

claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged." Har-Pen Truck Lines, Inc. v. Mills, 

378 F.2d 705 (5th Cir. 1967) (citing United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 1966, 383 

U.S. 715, 724, 86 S.Ct. 1130 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d 218, 227).

The claims asserted against the two additional national officers are similar to those asserted 

against the existing two national officers, therefore the nexus of events and claims are similar. The 

discovery of the new evidence necessitates Plaintiff should be entitled the opportunity to join the 

National Vice-President and the National Secretary to the lawsuit upon discovery that these two 

officers knew of the existence of the Confidential Memos as of October 2020. The Court should 

note, at no point did Defendant deny the fact that any of these officers knew of and received the 

Confidential Memo explaining that Plaintiff calculated and paid items properly under the Ross 

Transition Agreement. Consequently, for purposes of judicial efficiency, these two officers should 

be joined as appropriate parties to the pending action before this court. 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant hereby prays for a judgment of the Court 

that: 

(1) Larry Salas, and Josh Black are hereby joined as proper Defendants to the pending action before 

this Court; 

(2) the Court grant Plaintiff leave to file its second amended complaint, 

(3) the Court grant such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Defendant may be justly 

entitled to receive. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 93 Filed 05/19/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID 2092
9 

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 on May 19, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was 

served upon Plaintiff’s attorney via the e-file manager and email to denison@baabdenison.com, 

jbartos@geclaw.com, abird@geclaw.com and mrake1@mrakeattorney.com. 

Respectfully submitted,

K.D. PHILLIPS LAW FIRM, PLLC

By: /s/ Kerri Phillips 

Kerri Phillips

Texas Bar No. 24065906

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com

5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300

Plano, Texas 75024

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

For Service of Filings: 

notice@KDphillipslaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 93 Filed 05/19/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID 2093