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. § 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY 

DEENDANT COUNTERCLAIMANT AFPA 

TO ENFORCE THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION IN THIS CASE 

Defendant Counterclaim/Plaintiff Association of Professional Flight Attendants 

(“APFA”), by its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Brief in support of its Motion for 

Summary Judgment against Plaintiff/ Counterclaim Defendant Eugenio Vargas (“Vargas”) for 

judicial confirmation and enforcement of the decisions of the Arbitrator against Vargas at issue 

in this case. 

IDENTIFICATION OF LIVE PLEADINGS 

The live pleadings for each party who has appeared in this action are as follows: 

May 17, 2022 Doc. 1 “Plaintiff’s Original Complaint and Motion to Vacate Arbitration 

Award” 

June 13, 2022 Doc. 11 "Defendants Association of Professional Flight Attendants, Julie 

Hedrick and Erik Harris’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 

and Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Association of 

Professional Flight Attendants’ Counterclaim for Enforcement of 

the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order" 

July 1, 2022 Doc. 18 "Counter-Defendant Eugenio Vargas’s Answer to CounterPlaintiff’s Counter-Complaint" 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 44 Filed 09/20/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID 2424
2 

SUMMARY 

Per LR 56.3(a) and (b), and this Court’s requirements for motions for summary 

judgement, the “elements of each . . . claim as to which summary judgement is sought” as 

asserted in APFA’s Counterclaim (doc. 11, PageID 106-116) are as follows: 

As the APFA Constitution (“Constitution”) is a labor contract enforceable under Section 

301 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 

U.S.C.§185, the Decisions of the Arbitrator, at issue herein, decided pursuant to the terms 

of the Constitution are enforceable, and entitled to judicial deference, so long as those 

Decisions draw their essence from the terms of the Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

Internal union charges were filed against Vargas by union members alleging financial 

misconduct during his term as APFA National Treasurer. The charges were then referred to an 

impartial Arbitrator by APFA pursuant to the requirements of the APFA Constitution, heard over 

several days by the Arbitrator and ultimately resolved by that Arbitrator’s final and binding 

decision. Thereafter, the Arbitrator issued a supplemental decision on the issue of remedy. 

Although Vargas filed this lawsuit challenging the Arbitrator’s decision, there is no claim by 

Vargas that the Arbitrator’s decision or supplemental decision were beyond the Arbitrator’s 

jurisdictional authority under the APFA Constitution or that his decisions violated the terms of 

the Constitution or Policy Manual in any way. Accordingly, under well-settled precedent, the 

Arbitrator’s decisions are entitled to the Court’s deference, confirmation and enforcement as a 

matter of law.1

1

 Defendant APFA reserves the issues of attorneys fees and sanctions pending the Court’s 

resolution of this Motion and its pending Motion to Dismiss (doc. 24). Further, if the Court 

determines to Dismiss the Vargas Complaint and to grant APFA’s Counterclaim (doc. 11 at 

PageID 106-116) enforcing the Arbitrator’s decisions in this case, the additional allegations in 

the Defendants’ Counterclaim for Vargas’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty will have effectively 

been resolved as well. (doc. 11 at PageID 115-116). The same is true for the companion case of 

Ross v. APFA et al.. CA No. 4-22-0343-Y. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 44 Filed 09/20/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID 2425
3 

THE UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 

The following undisputed and material facts are well-documented in the record: 

APFA is an independent labor union representing flight attendants employed by 

American Airlines and structurally organized into local affiliate labor organizations known as 

Base Councils. (App. 002-03, APFA Constitution, Exh. A at 24-25). 

After internal union charges were filed against Vargas by APFA members alleging 

serious acts of financial misconduct by Vargas during his term as APFA National Treasurer, 

those charges were then referred to an impartial Arbitrator as required by the APFA Constitution 

and Policy Manual. (App. 005-19; Ex. A, Constitution at 41-46, App. 005-10 and Policy Manual 

at 17.1-17.7, App. 013-19). The APFA was not a party to the arbitration process. Id. 

The Arbitrator conducted a hearing on the charges on September 14-16, 2021, during 

which the members called eleven (11) witnesses and Vargas then called seven (7) witnesses in 

his defense. (App. 021, Arbitration. Decision, Exh. B at 2). Thereafter, post-hearing briefs were 

filed by the parties. In his post-hearing brief to the Arbitrator, Vargas explicitly recognized and 

conceded the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction under the APFA Constitution to resolve the charges 

against him. Vargas Post-hearing Brief, (App. 065, Exh. E (unpaginated)). The allegations 

against Vargas are set forth in the Arbitrator’s decision. (App. 021-24, Exh. B at 2-4). 

The Arbitrator issued his decision, on February 18, 2022. After reviewing the parties’ 

respective positions, the Arbitrator’s decision addressed those allegations in detail. (App. 049-

57, Exh. B at 30-38). The Arbitrator sustained three (3) of the five (5) charges against Vargas 

and concluded that his misconduct was “willful.” The Arbitrator concluded that Vargas violated 

the governing requirements of the APFA Policy Manual and “violated and abused his fiduciary 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 44 Filed 09/20/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID 2426
4 

duty” as APFA National Treasurer, and ruled that he should be “prohibited from serving in any 

official capacity for life withing the APFA...” (App. 052, Exh. B at 33). 

The Arbitrator issued a remedy providing that Vargas repay APFA for moneys 

wrongfully expended during his term of office as National Treasurer and that he repay APFA for 

the one-half of the Arbitrator’s Fee. (App. 042-43, Exh. B at 23-24). 

The Arbitrator further directed APFA to retain an independent auditor to review the 

union records for purposes of computing any additional moneys owed by Vargas. (App. 042, 

Exh. B at 23). On March 10, 2022, the Arbitrator issued a decision clarifying his remedy. (App. 

059-60, Exh. C). 

 The Arbitrator then issued a supplemental decision on August 24, 2022, based on that 

auditor’s report, imposing additional monetary remedies against Vargas (App. 062-63, Exh. D). 

(doc. 39, at 2-3).2 Again, the Arbitrator retained jurisdiction for a period of time. 

Vargas has refused to comply with the Arbitrator’s decisions and filed this lawsuit to 

obtain a court order vacating the Arbitrator’s decisions. Complaint. (doc.1). APFA filed its 

Answer and this Counterclaim for enforcement of the Arbitrator’s decision and breach of 

fiduciary duty (doc. 11). 

At no time – during the arbitration process, in Vargas’s Complaint to the Court, or in his 

Answer to the APFA counterclaim – has Vargas ever acknowledged the judicial deference to 

which arbitration decisions are entitled nor has he alleged, let alone specifically shown that the 

Arbitrator’s decisions fail to draw their essence from the APFA Constitution or were in any way 

beyond the arbitrator’s jurisdiction or violated the specific terms of the APFA Constitution or 

2 No opposition was filed by Vargas to APFA’s motion (doc. 39) requesting the Court take 

judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of the Arbitrator’s August 24, 2022 

supplemental decision on the issue of appropriate remedy. (App 059-60, Ex. C). 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 44 Filed 09/20/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID 2427
5 

Policy Manual governing the process of resolving internal union charges, or that the decisions in 

this case were beyond the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction. (App. 027-32, Arbitration Decision, Exh. B at 

8-13); Complaint at paras. 28-35. (doc. 2); Answer to Counterclaim (doc. 18). Vargas’s 

objections to the Arbitrator’s decisions are entirely limited to the merits of the charges and to the 

procedural conduct of the hearing. 

ARGUMENT 

1. Summary Judgment Principles 

The Court may grant summary judgment where the pleadings and evidence show "that 

there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is not "a disfavored procedural 

shortcut," but rather an "integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed to 

secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986). "[T]he substantive law will identify which facts are material." 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248(1986). 

A genuine dispute as to a material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable 

jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. The movant must inform the court of the 

basis of its motion and demonstrate from the record that no genuine dispute as to any material 

fact exists. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. "The party opposing summary judgment is required to 

identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate the precise manner in which that 

evidence supports his or her claim." Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th 

Cir. 1998). 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 44 Filed 09/20/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID 2428
6 

2. Jurisdiction to Enforce Arbitration Decisions Under LMRA Section 301(a): 

The substantive law that identifies which facts are material, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. at 248, is Section 301(a) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C.§185(a). The Constitution of the 

APFA is a “contract ... between labor organizations” enforceable under Section 301(a) of the 

LMRA. United Ass’n of Journeymen v. Local 334, 452 U.S. 615, 622 (1981); Wooddell v. Int’l 

Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 502 U.S. 93, 99, 101 (1991); Hampton v. Int’l Longshoreman’s Ass’n, 

2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218154 at *5-6 (S.D. Tex. 2007). 

As this Court recently summarized the applicable legal standard for judicial deference to 

arbitration decisions under LMRA Section 301(a): 

In actions brought under 29 U.S.C. § 185 questioning an arbitrator's decision on a 

contract dispute, the Court may only look at whether the arbitrator's decision 

"draws its essence from the [collective bargaining agreement]." This standard is 

interpreted "expansively." Even if the arbitrator "seriously erred in his fact finding 

or contract interpretation," the Court must uphold a decision that draws from the 

essence of the collective bargaining agreement. "It is only when the arbitrator 

strays from interpretation and application of the agreement and effectively 

'dispense[s] his own brand of industrial justice' that his decision may be 

unenforceable." An arbitrator dispenses "industrial justice" by acting contrary to 

the express provisions of the collective bargaining agreement or otherwise 

ignoring its plain language. 

Bldg. Materials Mfg. Co. v. Steelworkers, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37075, 2020 WL 1047895 at 

*7-8 (N.D. Tex. 2020) (emphasis added, footnotes omitted) (J. Starr) (enforcing arbitrator’s 

decisions and granting attorneys fees); Allied Waste Systems Inc. v. Teamsters Local 767, 2007 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43035, 2007 WL 1703634 at *11-13, 19-21 (N.D. Tex. 2007) (J. Means) 

(awarding attorney fees for baseless challenge to an arbitrator’s decision). See also Ball Metal 

Container Corp. v. UAW Local 129, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 33214, 2022 WL 340573 at *7-8 

(5th Cir. 2022) (unpublished). 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 44 Filed 09/20/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID 2429
7 

The undisputed and well-documented record in this case plainly establishes that the 

Arbitrator did not act “contrary to the express provisions” of the governing APFA Constitution 

or “ignor[e] its plain language.” (App. 020-58, Exh B; App. 059-60, Exh C; App. 061-63, Exh. 

D). Indeed, Vargas explicitly conceded the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to resolve the charges 

against him in his post-hearing brief. (App. 064-65, Exh. E). Judicial deference to the 

Arbitrator’s decisions is therefore required.

3. Vargas Has No Legally Viable Basis to Challenge the Arbitrator’s Decisions in 

This Case Which Are Entitled to Judicial Deference and Enforcement As a 

Matter of Law: 

As noted above, Vargas has never even attempted to establish that the Arbitrator 

somehow violated or acted contrary to the express provisions of the governing AFPA 

Constitution, not before the Arbitrator, in his Complaint or in his opposition to Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss. Indeed, he conceded the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction in his post-hearing brief. 

(App. 064-65, Exh. E). Accordingly, he has asserted no basis for avoiding the Court’s deference 

to the Arbitrator’s decisions. Bldg. Materials Mfg. Co. v. Steelworkers, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

37075, 2020 WL 1047895 at *7-8 . 

The arguments Vargas has made to the Court are unavailing as a matter of law. His 

objections to the Arbitrator’s decisions in his Complaint and in his opposition to Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss address the merits of the charges or the Arbitrator’s conduct of the proceeding 

(docs. 1, 11). These procedural claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and 

not the Court. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 378 U.S. 543, 557 (1964); Columbian 

Carbon Co. v. Operating Engineers, 360 F. 2d 1018, 1020-21 (5th Cir. 1966). And Vargas failed 

to even attempt to bring any of those claims to the Arbitrator for his consideration during the 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 44 Filed 09/20/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID 2430
8 

arbitration process even though, as noted above, the Arbitrator has explicitly retained jurisdiction 

in both decisions. But Vargas has never raised his objections to the Arbitrator. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, AFPA urges the Court to grant partial summary judgment 

in its favor on its Counterclaim to confirm and enforce the Arbitrator’s decisions against Vargas. 

Date: September 20, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Sanford R. Denison

SANFORD R. DENISON 

Tex. Bar No. 05655560 

Baab & Denison, LLP 

6301 Gaston Ave., Suite 550 

Dallas, TX 75214 

Tel.: (214) 637-0750 

Fax.: (214) 637-0730 

Email: denison@baabdenison.com 

WILLIAM W. OSBORNE JR.* 

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 

Counsel for Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff 

Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and 

Defendants Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris 

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 44 Filed 09/20/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID 2431
9 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 20th day of September 2022 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 

HEATHER ABREU 

K.D. Phillips Law Firm, PLLC 

5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300 

Plano, Texas 75024 

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com 

Email: Heather@KDphillipslaw.com 

/s/ Sanford R. Denison

SANFORD R. DENISON 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 44 Filed 09/20/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID 2432