Gibbs should have copied and pasted the old pleadings as it were. That is what de novo is all about. Gibbs had stale pleadings based on something other than de novo.
This de novo matter may raise its own consitutional issues. I don't know. Having two bites out of the apple in a civil case, is well, rather novel. But that is not relevant to an injunction motion.
It is not the pleadings that needed to be de novo, but under the act, the finding of fact. I cannot believe that you have also sucumbed to the logical error that Whittmore is guilty of.