Gibbs v. Mylaurel Health — Court allowed corrected defendant name but deferred other relief

Reported / Citable

Background

Whitney Gibbs moved for leave to file a first amended complaint correcting the defendant’s name from “Mylaurel Health d/b/a Mylaurel, Inc.” to “myLaurel Medical Group LA, LLC.” The defendant did not oppose that correction.

Gibbs also asked the court to confirm that the amendment related back to the filing of her original petition on June 30, 2026, extend her time to serve the correctly named defendant by 30 days, and deny the defendant’s pending motion to dismiss as moot. The defendant opposed those additional requests.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted Gibbs leave to amend and directed the clerk to file her proposed pleading as the First Amended Complaint. It denied her other requested relief at that time, explaining that it did not yet need to decide whether the amendment related back or whether the service deadline should be extended.

The court also held that the amended complaint did not moot the pending motion to dismiss. Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent, the court said a pending dismissal motion may be applied to an amended pleading when the asserted defects remain. It therefore applied the defendant’s motion to the First Amended Complaint and stated that, in ruling on that motion, it would address the defendant’s argument that the case should be dismissed for untimely service.

Key Takeaways

• The plaintiff may amend her complaint to identify the defendant as myLaurel Medical Group LA, LLC.
• The court did not decide whether the amendment relates back to the original petition’s filing date.
• The amended pleading did not moot the pending dismissal motion, and the court will address the defendant’s timely-service argument when ruling on that motion.

Why It Matters

Correcting a defendant’s name through an amended complaint does not necessarily resolve disputes over relation back or timely service. Those procedural questions can remain open after amendment.

The order also illustrates that an amended complaint does not automatically require a defendant to file a new dismissal motion. A court may treat an existing motion as directed to the amended pleading when the alleged defects persist.