Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Page 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, MCGAUGHEY, 

REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 

JULIE HEDRICK, ERIK HARRIS

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff. §

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Comes now, Defendant, Robert “Bob” Ross, and files Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition

to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

In accordance with Local Rule 56.4 (b), Plaintiff files an accompanying “Brief in 

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” 

Plaintiff denies that this motion should be granted, as there is clearly a genuine issue 

of material fact that remains as to the misrepresentations and application of the law that 

should be applied to the case at issue, and therefore a motion for summary judgment is 

premature and should not be granted.

In this Response, Plaintiff demonstrates that Defendant’s summary judgment 

evidence clearly establishes relevant fact issues continue to exist and further that Defendant

has failed to establish the elements of its causes of action for Enforcement of the APFA 

Constitution and application of the Arbitrator’s Decision as well as a Breach of Fiduciary 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 52 Filed 11/01/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1261
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Page 2 

Duty claim, either under common law, or under the LMRDA §501(a), because;

1. A jury could find that there exists a genuine issue of material fact as it relates to 

the procurement of the Arbitrator’s Award through fraud and dishonesty;

2. Defendant APFA failed to meet its burden of establishing by a preponderance of 

evidence that the Ross was given proper due process in accordance with the APFA 

Const. Art. II, Sec. 3D. 

3. APFA failed to meet its burden of establishing that there is no disputed material fact as 

it relates to its claims to enforce the arbitration award, the breach of fiduciary duty 

under the LMRDA §501, or the breach of fiduciary duty under Texas common law. 

4. There remain disputed material facts—most important being the misrepresentations 

and concealment of evidence APFA fails to address in its motion. 

5. Defendant, APFA fails to establish that there existed a fiduciary duty at the time 

that the alleged overpayments occurred; 

6. Defendant, APFA fails to establish those alleged overpayments were, in fact, 

wrongful and breached any fiduciary duty; and

7. Defendant, APFA, fails to establish that Plaintiff’s alleged action of accepting the 

alleged overpayments caused any harm to the Defendant. 

On the grounds set forth above and detailed in the Plaintiff’s accompanying brief, Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment should be denied and this case set for trial on the merits. 

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 52 Filed 11/01/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1262
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Page 3 

By: /s/ Heather Abreu

Heather Abreu

Texas Bar No. 24122577 

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Email: heather@KDphillipslaw.com

5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300

Plano, Texas 75024 

Fax: (940) 400-0089

For Service of Filings: 

notice@KDphillipslaw.com

ATTORNEYS 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 1st day of November 2022.

William Osborne, Sanford Denison 

/s/Kerri Phillips 

Kerri Phillips

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 52 Filed 11/01/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1263