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 JOINDER AND MOTION TO

AMEND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 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 §101(a)(5) 

among other federal and state claims on February 22, 2023 [PageID 1741; Docket No. 

75]. Defendants filed their answer and counterclaims against Plaintiff on March 8, 2023 [PageID 

unidentified; Docket No. 79]. As set forth more specifically, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave 

to filed its second amended complaint and permissive joinder of three additional Defendants: 

Larry Salas, APFA National Vice-President, and Josh Black, APFA National Secretary, and IMA 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 83 Filed 04/08/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID 3349
2 

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

Officers. 

Table of Contents

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff................................................................................................................ 1

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.............................................................................................. 8

A. Applicable Law................................................................................................................................. 8

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

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

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Whitmire v. Victus Ltd., 212 F.3d 885 (5th Cir. 2000). ............................................................ 3, 12 

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

New Hope Hospitality, 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. § 101(a)(5) ...................................................................................................................... 1 

29 U.S.C. § 158. ............................................................................................................................. 5 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 83 Filed 04/08/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID 3350
3 

29 U.S.C. §401 ................................................................................................................................ 5 

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

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

Court Rules

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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). ..................................................................................................................... 1 

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

Fed R. Civ P. 20(a)(1) ). ................................................................................................... 1,8, 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 

President. Plaintiff was charged with violations of the APFA policy based primarily on alleged 

overpayments discovered by an accounting firm’s review of the union’s payments under Plaintiff’s 

Transition Agreement. Plaintiff prepared and defended himself in the union’s internal dispute 

procedure (“arbitration”) wherein Plaintiff issued subpoenas for documentation and witness 

testimony from the union, [PageID 13; Docket No.1]1

 The internal dispute procedures resulted in 

Plaintiff being disciplined by revoking his right to hold elected office, and fined. Plaintiff was 

1 Docket No. 1, Pl. Original Compl. ¶30 PAGEID 13.

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 83 Filed 04/08/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID 3351
4 

found to have violated his fiduciary duty, subsequently banned for life from holding any unionelected position, terminated his position as Board member and Base President, and disciplined in 

the amount of $62,558.75 to be paid to the union.2

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

others that Ross stole money and owed money for overpayments made under his Transition 

Agreement. He asserted that Vargas and Ross conspired to be overpaid upon their exit in 2018. 

McGaughey, Reber and Associates, Inc. dba Diversified Credit Systems (“Diversified Credit 

Systems”) collected on Plaintiff on the same alleged debt the union attempted to collect through 

its internal arbitration. Diversified filed a suit to and in its Original Complaint, it attached a neverbefore seen letter (“Confidential Memo”) from the accounting review cited by the Harris 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 

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 1-15; Docket No. 56-1]3

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 1-15, 41-

2 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 from Defendant’s Counsel and the parties to the Arbitration 

for copies of the audit review. 

3 Email from Hal O’Neil to Erik Harris on October 22, 2020, [Appendix P. 1-15]. Pl.’s Original Petition, Tarrant County Justice 

Court, Precinct Three, JP03-22-D00017757; [Appendix p. 41-42].

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 83 Filed 04/08/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID 3352
5 

42; Docket No. 56-1]4 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 

(“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 

4 Martin Aff. [Appendix p. 16-24]; 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 83 Filed 04/08/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID 3353
6 

ran for National Vice-President, and Eugenio Vargas (“Vargas”) ran for National Treasurer.5

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 Plaintiff in a 

deliberate attempt to suppress his dissent of the Hedrick Administration and any proposed merger.6

 

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, 

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 1-15; 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 44-47; Docket No. 56-1]. The APFA Executive Committee recommended the charges 

5 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 83 Filed 04/08/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID 3354
7 

proceed to a APFA Article VII Disciplinary Arbitration in which the Plaintiff subpoenaed 

documents and called witnesses in a two-day hearing. [¶¶33-34 [PAGEID 90-91; 107-109, Docket 

No. 8]. 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 [¶¶15-27 [PAGEID 90-91; 107-109; 

Docket No. 8]. Thereafter, 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 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 

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. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 83 Filed 04/08/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID 3355
8 

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.[Docket No. 8, ¶¶15-17[PAGEID 90-91; 107-109] This denied Plaintiff a fair opportunity 

to review and contest the evidenceπ, 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 

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

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 83 Filed 04/08/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID 3356
9 

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 about the LMRDA claims, 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 

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. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 83 Filed 04/08/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID 3357
10

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 

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

cause of action. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 83 Filed 04/08/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID 3358
11

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 voted sat 

on the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors 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 

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

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 83 Filed 04/08/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID 3359
12

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

Rule 15(a)(2). [Docket 56-1, Appendix p. 15-14]. 

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 7, 2023 via email for 

conference purposes. Defendants’ Counsel has not indicated whether they are opposed or agreed 

with the submission of this Motion and Brief as of filing. 

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 7th day of April 2023. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 83 Filed 04/08/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID 3360
13

William Osborne, Sanford Denison 

/s/Kerri Phillips 

Kerri Phillips

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 83 Filed 04/08/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID 3361