Christopher Virgin and Brandi Virgin v. Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, LLC

S.D. Texas

Christopher Virgin and Brandi Virgin v. Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, LLC

District Court, S.D. Texas·Decided March 11, 2026·No. 4:25-cv-02874·Unknown

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Maren 11, 2026 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION CHRISTOPHER VIRGIN AND BRANDI § VIRGIN, § § Plaintiffs, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-02874 § ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER RISK § MANAGEMENT SERVICIES, LLC, § § Defendant. § ORDER 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. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and should give pro se plaintiffs ‘every reasonable opportunity to amend.’” Cherry v. Mainous, 608 Fed. App’x 301, 302 (Sth Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (quoting Pena v. United States, 157 F.3d 984, 987 n.3 (Sth 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

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 UW day of March 2026.

Andrew S. Hanen United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Maren 11, 2026 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION CHRISTOPHER VIRGIN AND BRANDI § VIRGIN, § § Plaintiffs, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-02874 § ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER RISK § MANAGEMENT SERVICIES, LLC, § § Defendant. § ORDER 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. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and should give pro se plaintiffs ‘every reasonable opportunity to amend.’” Cherry v. Mainous, 608 Fed. App’x 301, 302 (Sth Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (quoting Pena v. United States, 157 F.3d 984, 987 n.3 (Sth 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

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 UW day of March 2026.

Andrew S. Hanen United States District Judge

Christopher Virgin and Brandi Virgin v. Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, LLC, (S.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Christopher Virgin and Brandi Virgin v. Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, LLC (Christopher Virgin and Brandi Virgin v. Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related