Virgin et al v. Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER VIRGIN AND BRANDI
VIRGIN,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER RISK
MANAGEMENT SERVICIES, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-02874
Pending before this Court is Defendant Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services,
LLC's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 3), Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 9) , Plaintiffs Christopher Virgin and Brandi Virgin's ("Plaintiffs") Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 	16) , Plaintiffs' Motion for Status
Conference (Doc. No. 19), Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Doc. No. 20), and
Defendant's Motion to Strike Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 21).
After reviewing the pending motions, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' request to file their
Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 16). "The district court should freely give a plaintiff
permission to amend his complaint, FED. R. Crv. P. 15(a)(2), and should give pro se plaintiffs
' every reasonable opportunity to amend. "' Cherry v. Mainous, 608 Fed. App' x 301 , 302 (5th Cir.
2015) (per curiam) (quoting Pena v. United States, 157 F.3d 984, 987 n.3 (5th Cir. 1998)). If the
Plaintiffs choose to file a Second Amended Complaint, they shall file that Complaint by March
27, 2026. Defendant may respond in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Court also notes that if the Plaintiffs choose to add any new defendants, those defendants must be
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 11, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02874 Document 24 Filed 03/11/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

properly served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 before they are considered joined as a
party to this lawsuit.
As this Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. No. 16) , the Court denies the pending motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 3, 9) and the Plaintiff's
Motion for Status Conference (Doc. No. 19) as moot. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses (Doc. No. 20) and Defendant's Motion to Strike Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 21) are
denied without prejudice until the Court can hold a pre-motion conference in accordance with
Local Rule 8.
It is so ordered.
Signed on this the 	l l~ay of March 2026.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
2
Case 4:25-cv-02874 Document 24 Filed 03/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2