1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

OF TEXAS FT. WORTH DIVISION

EUGENIO VARGAS §

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant §

§

§

§

§

§ Case No. 4:22-CV-00430-Y

§

§

ASSOCIATION OF 

PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT

ATTENDANTS, JULIE HEDRICK, 

ERIK HARRIS

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff. §

PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT AND FOR JOINDER PURSUANT TO

FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2) AND 20(a)(1)

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

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

56.1 and 56.5. Plaintiff Vargas, by and through the undersigned counsel, respectfully moves to 

join the following additional parties and claims asserted therein to the case before the court.

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. 55-1, pursuant to Docket

No. 72]. Defendants filed their answer and counterclaims against Plaintiff on March 8, 2023 

[Docket No. 76]. As set forth more specifically, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to file its 

second amended complaint and permissive joinder of three additional Defendants: Larry Salas, 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 86 Filed 04/14/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID 3439
2 

APFA National Vice-President, and Josh Black, APFA National Secretary, and IMA Financial 

Group, Inc. which issued surety bonds for the Plaintiff, and for the APFA National Officers. 

Table of Contents

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................................. 2

Cases................................................................................................................................................... 2

Statutes & Regulations....................................................................................................................... 2

Court Rules........................................................................................................................................ 3

I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 3

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE........................................................................................................ 5

III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................... 9

A. Applicable Law............................................................................................................................ 9

B. Request to Grant Plaintiff Leave to file Amended Complaint......................................................... 10

IV. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 12

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Pulitzer-Polster v. Pulitzer, 784 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5th Cir. 2006))................................... 9

New Hope Hosp., LLC v. EH Nat'l Bank (N.D. Tex. 2016).................................;;;;;;;;.... 9

In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Nova Cas. Co. v. Guzman (N.D. Tex. 

2021).........................................................................................................9 

Statutes & Regulations

29 U.S.C. § 158..........................................................................................................................6 

29 U.S.C. §401 ............................................................................................................................6 

29 U.S.C. § 411....................................................................................................................... 1, 5 

29 U.S.C. § 502(a)(5).......................................................................................................... 10, 11 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 86 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID 3440
3 

Court Rules 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). ........................................................................................................... 1, 10 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). ............................................................................................................ 9, 11 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). ....................................................................................................... 1, 12

Fed R. Civ P. 20(a)(1) ).................................................................................................... 1, 9, 11

Local Rule 7.1............................................................................................................................ 1

Local Rule 7.2............................................................................................................................ 1

Local Rule 54.1. ......................................................................................................................... 1

Local Rule 56.5.......................................................................................................................... 1 

I. INTRODUCTION

Vargas is a member in good standing of the APFA union and the Former National 

Treasurer. 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 to Robert “Bob” Ross (“Ross”). Ross served as National President at the same time as 

Plaintiff served as APFA National Treasurer. Ross negotiated a Transition Agreement with the 

APFA Board of Directors requiring Ross resign as National President before his tenure was over 

in exchange for moving expenses and all payments he would receive had he not resigned as 

National President. Ross resigned on March 1, 2018. Plaintiff was shown only the portions of the 

Transition Agreement pertinent to payment, calculated the appropriate payment, and authorized 

the union distribute the funds. Charges were brought against Plaintiff for these payments made to 

Ross among other allegations. These charges were launched under an administration and by 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 86 Filed 04/14/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID 3441
4 

charging parties from an opposing political faction within the union in November of 2020, and his 

charges were referred to the union’s disciplinary proceedings. Plaintiff prepared and defended 

himself in the union’s internal dispute procedure (“arbitration”) wherein Plaintiff subpoenaed 

documentation and witness testimony from the union. The internal dispute procedures resulted in 

Plaintiff substantial fines and a complete revocation of his right to hold elected office within the 

union. [PageID 13-51; Docket No.1-1]. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the union was withholding 

documentation pertinent to the issues that would substantiate Vargas’s calculations under the Ross 

Transition Agreement—the claim that started launched the charges against the Ross 

Administration. The union leadership, in conjunction with the charging union members, conspired 

and coordinated their efforts to discredit and mar Plaintiff’s reputation to discredit the opposing 

political faction. Due to his alleged breach of the union constitution and policy, the union found 

Plaintiff to have violated his duty, subsequently banned for life from holding any union-elected 

positions and fined in the amount of $30,963.03.

1

Simultaneously, the National Officers continued to inform APFA Leadership and others 

that Ross and Vargas stole money. The Union asserted that Vargas and Ross conspired to be 

overpaid upon their exit in 2018. Diversified filed a suit to and in its Original Complaint, it attached 

a never-before seen letter (“Confidential Memo”) from the accounting review cited by Eric Harris 

(“Harris”) the current National Treasurer and, others as the reason to bring disciplinary charges 

against Plaintiff. 

The Confidential Memorandum states “Please note the Bob Ross confidential transition 

agreement states that he will be paid all of his accrued and unused sick and accrued and unused 

1 The amount of the award was substantially increased in violation of the APFA Const. against Ex Parte Communications, as 

Plaintiff was never given any copies of the audit performed, and an opportunity to object or respond prior to the arbitrator 

amending his award. The court should note, this is despite requests made to Defendant’s Counsel and the parties to the 

Arbitration for copies of the audit review and all documentation with no disclosure of these documents. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 86 Filed 04/14/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID 3442
5

vacation time. This agreement doesn't specify that the payments be made in accordance with the 

policy manual guidelines. Consequently, these payments appear appropriate and in compliance 

with the transition agreement.” [PageID 52-53; Docket No. 1-2].

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 2983-2997, 

2998-3006; Docket No. 56-1].

2

 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 

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

fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff. 

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff, Eugenio Vargas (“Plaintiff”) seeks damages alleging unlawful violations of the 

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 411, et seq. (“LMRDA”), the 

Association of Professional Flight Attendants Union Constitution, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty 

as provided for under Texas Common Law by Defendants APFA, Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris 

2 Nena Martin was one of Vargas’s union representatives in the 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-00430-Y Document 86 Filed 04/14/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID 3443
6

(“hereinafter Defendants”) along with current National Vice President Larry Salas and National 

Secretary Josh Black (“hereafter Proposed Joinder Defendats). APFA is a labor organization

covered under the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §401 et seq, and 29 U.S.C. § 158, et seq. Plaintiff is a 

member in good standing of APFA as defined under the LMRDA and 29 U.S.C. § 158.

On or about January of 2016, the Plaintiff ran for office within the APFA local union 

elections. For clarification, Robert “Bob” Ross (“Ross”) ran for National President Nena Martin 

ran for National Vice-President, and Eugenio Vargas (“Vargas”) ran for National Treasurer.3

Plaintiff was elected National Treasurer, Nena Martin elected Vice-President, and Ross 

Elected National President (“Ross Administration”). The Ross Administration opposed a merger 

of the union with AFA—another multi-airline flight attendants’ union. This created two political

factions within APFA competing for power: Pro-APFA/AFA and Anti-APFA/AFA. In 2020, 

the Hedrick Administration (a Pro-APFA/AFA Administration) was elected to the National Office. 

Thereafter, Plaintiff was charged, hearings held, and the union ultimately fined and barred Plaintiff 

from ever holding office again in a deliberate attempt to suppress his association with the Ross 

Administration and his dissent of the Hedrick Administration and any proposed merger.4 The 

Hedrick Administration continually misrepresented to the APFA leadership that the APFA 

Accounting Firm conducted a review and determined Ross owed the union money for 

overpayments and refused to pay them back. He further stated that it was a coordinated conspiracy 

between Vargas and Ross to receive overpayments prior to their exit from office by miscalculating 

payments made to themselves. The Confidential Memo directly contradicts Harris’s assertions, 

3 It should be noted that Chinery-Burns and Lee also filed charges against Nena Martin, the Vice-President during 

the Ross Administration, however as of October 14, 2022, the Arbitrator summarily dismissed all charges against 

Ms. Martin after finding that Chinery-Burns and Lee submitted false evidence to the APFA Executive Committee to 

procure a finding of validity, specificity, and timeliness.

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 86 Filed 04/14/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID 3444
7 

but this document was never turned over to APFA leadership, the Arbitrator conducting the union 

disciplinary hearings, nor the Plaintiff. 

The Confidential Memorandum was received on October 22, 2020—only one month prior 

to Melissa Chinery-Burns and Sandra Lee filing charges against Plaintiff on November 24, 2020.

[PageID 2985-2997, 2998-3006; Docket No. 56-1]. On December 1, 2020, the Executive 

Committee held a meeting, reviewed the charges against Plaintiff and voted that the charges were 

valid, specific, and timely. [PageID 3025-3028; Docket No. 56-1]. The APFA Executive 

Committee recommended the charges proceed to an APFA Article VII Disciplinary Arbitration in 

which the Plaintiff subpoenaed documents and called witnesses in a two-day hearing. At the end 

of the Arbitration, Plaintiff’s representatives drafted a brief and submitted it to the Article VII 

Arbitrator and thereafter an award was issued The APFA Board of Directors voted and accepted 

the Arbitration Award and for the first time in APFA history, Plaintiff’s Arbitration Award was 

made public and emailed notice was sent via a Presidential Letter to the entire union.

The charging parties pursued charges on behalf of the Union. It is the Union that collects 

the monies rendered under the Arbitration Award—the charging parties gain no monetary benefit

from pursing charges. It is the Union that pays for the Disciplinary Hearing. It is the Union that 

conducts the Disciplinary Hearing, forwards all communications to and from the Arbitrator from 

the parties, chooses the Arbitrator, the location, time and date of the Disciplinary Hearing, controls 

and produces all documentation for the Disciplinary Hearing. It is the APFA National Treasurer 

that controls and maintains all records on behalf of the Union, thus he must testify to the accuracy 

of the documents. 

Melissa Chinery-Burns, on February 23, 2022, married the AFA General Counsel, Joe 

Burns (AFA is the union vying to merge with APFA). This was only weeks prior to the issuance 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 86 Filed 04/14/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID 3445
8

of an award against Plaintiff. In attendance at the Chinery-Burns Wedding includes three of the 

National APFA officers (shown in the photographs of the wedding) International President of 

AFA, Sarah Nelson, and other key APFA Board of Directors. This clearly illustrates the 

connection between APFA leadership and the charging party against Plaintiff at the charging 

party’s wedding only weeks prior to the issuance of the Arbitration Award. 

APFA’s Executive Committee voted—without knowledge as to the Confidential Memo—

to proceed with APFA’s disciplinary arbitration hearing against Plaintiff—this fact is not in 

dispute. The arbitrator denied Plaintiff a fair opportunity to review and contest the evidence, to 

question accusers and witnesses, to object to unreliable and inadmissible evidence, and to a fair 

opportunity to present his case. The National Treasurer, Erik Harris, (“Harris”) perpetuated the 

misrepresentation that APFA’s accounting firm Woods, Stephens, and O’Neil, conducted a review 

of Ross’s payments and discovered he and Vargas conspired to steal from the union and refused to 

pay back the money. Consequently, the arbitration resulted in the union’s favorable disciplinary 

award. 

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 has 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 86 Filed 04/14/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID 3446
9

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. 

III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

A. Applicable Law

a. Applicable law for joinder is best brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 20(a) for the 

current circumstances. 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 raises issues under the LMRDA, defamation, intentional interference with a contract, 

and breach of fiduciary duty claims of Plaintiff’s union National Officers against Plaintiff. 

 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 Pulitzer-Polster v. Pulitzer, 784 F.2d 1305, 1309 

(5th Cir. 2006))." New Hope Hospitality, LLC v. EH Nat'l Bank (N.D. Tex. 2016)

 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 86 Filed 04/14/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID 3447
10

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. The Plaintiff hereby requests leave to amend 

his original complaint for the purpose of joining additional parties. 

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. The LMRDA § 502 provides: 

SEC. 502. (a) Every officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative or employee of any labor 

organization (other than a labor organization whose property and annual financial receipts do not 

exceed $5,000 in value), or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested, who handles funds 

or other property thereof shall be bonded to provide protection against loss by reason of acts of 

fraud or dishonesty on his part directly or through connivance with others. The bond of each 

such person shall be fixed at the beginning of the organization's fiscal year and shall be in an amount 

not less than 10 per centum of the funds handled by him and his predecessor or predecessors, if any, 

during the preceding fiscal year, but in no case more than $500,000. If the labor organization or the 

trust in which a labor organization is interested does not have a preceding fiscal year, the amount of 

the bond shall be, in the case of a local labor organization, not less than $1,000, and in the case of 

any other labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested, not less than 

$10,000. Such bonds shall be individual or schedule in form and shall have a corporate surety 

company as surety thereon. Any person who is not covered by such bonds shall not be permitted to 

receive, handle, disburse, or otherwise exercise custody or control of the funds or other property of 

a labor organization or of a trust in which a labor organization is interested. No such bond shall be 

placed through an agent or broker or with a surety company in which any labor organization or any 

officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative of a labor organization has any direct or indirect 

interest. Such surety company shall be a corporate surety which holds a grant of authority from the 

Secretary of the Treasury under the Act of July 30, 1947 (6 U.S.C. 6-13), as an acceptable surety on 

Federal bonds: Provided, That when in the opinion of the Secretary a labor organization has 

made other bonding arrangements which would provide the protection required by this 

section at comparable cost or less, he may exempt such labor organization from placing a bond 

through a surety company holding such grant of authority.

(b) Any person who willfully violates this section shall be fined not more than $10,000 or 

imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes and marked as Exhibit A is the 

Affidavit of Eugenio Vargas supporting the facts asserted herein. Vargas only recently discovered 

that IMA Financial Group, Inc. is the surety provider for all APFA’s National Officers. (See Aff. 

Eugenio Vargas, 1-3, Ex. A). The fidelity bond covers actions of fraud, loss of funds due to theft, 

or breach of fiduciary duty. (29 U.S.C. § 502). Provided that both claims and counterclaims stand 

before the court covering claims that would qualify, it seems entirely appropriate to join the surety 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 86 Filed 04/14/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID 3448
11

provider to the current pending action, as this provider is potentially liable on both sides of this 

cause of action. 

Plaintiff only recently discovered from additional union members the insurance bonding 

company that issued a surety bond in compliance with LMRDA § 502 on behalf of all national 

officers of the Ross Administration (Robert “Bob” Ross, Eugenio Vargas, Nena Martin, and Marcy 

Dunaway). (See Aff. Eugenio Vargas, 1-3, Ex. A). 

Furthermore, Plaintiff recently discovered that evidence exists that all four APFA National 

Officers had notice of the Confidential Memo in October of 2020. All National Officers were 

present the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors review of the charges and all failed 

to disclose this document at the Executive Committee Meeting in which the charges against 

Plaintiff were voted as valid, timely and specific. (See Aff. Eugenio Vargas, 1-3, Ex. A). The four 

National Officers voted at this Executive Committee meeting on whether to refer Plaintiff’s 

charges brought against him to Arbitration. Consequently, these officers breached their fiduciary 

duty to Plaintiff by concealing exculpatory documentation for which they all received notice. 

Plaintiff seeks the same damages, jointly and severally amongst all parties, including those 

Plaintiff seeks to join. All actions and facts asserted against the APFA National Officers, Julie 

Hedrick and Eric Harris, are similar to those asserted against Larry Salas and Josh Black. All 

questions of law and fact are common to the Plaintiff as they are common to the two current 

National Officers joined to the suit. Therefore, it appears permissive joinder is appropriate under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). 

Considering that the pending actions and damages are sought to be held jointly and severely, 

the facts are the same, and all additional parties are proper to the current cause of action—it is 

proper to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Joinder and grant leave to amend the original complaint. The 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 86 Filed 04/14/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID 3449
12

additional parties are likely to facilitate settlement due to the interest in the facts of this case, and 

its potential liability. This request is made in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Rule 15(a)(2). 

IV. 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,

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 CONFERENCE

Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant’s Counsel on April 14, 2023 via email for 

conference purposes. Defendants’ Counsel is opposed to this motion. 

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 14th day of April 2023. 

William Osborne, Sanford Denison 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 86 Filed 04/14/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID 3450
13

/s/Kerri Phillips 

Kerri Phillips

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 86 Filed 04/14/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID 3451