DEBBIE WILLIAMS v. BETTIS ASPHALT & CONSTRUCTION, INC., and ROADSAFE TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS DEBBIE WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 25-1151-JWB-GEB ) BETTIS ASPHALT & CONSTRUCTION, ) INC., and ROADSAFE TRAFFIC ) SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Pleadings by Interlineation, (“Motion”) (ECF No. 35). The Motion is unopposed, no responsive briefing has been filed, and the Motion is ripe for determination. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 35) as improper per Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and D. Kan. R. 15.1.

Plaintiff requests “the Court order that the prior pleadings in this case be amended by interlineation and that future pleadings in this case reflect the correct name of defendant Koss Construction.” However, generally courts do not allow amendment of the pleadings by interlineation, instead requiring amendment so the pleading is complete by itself.1 Allowing amendment by interlineation in this instance would make it difficult for the Court and parties to understand and determine the operative allegations and parties. Thus, the Abraham v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, No. 24-2354-DDC-TJJ, 2025 WL 1548437, at *1, n.3 (D.

Kan. May 30, 2025) (quoting Poslof v. Martel, No. 18-0761-MMA-AGS, 2018 WL 3019916, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2018)); Queen v. Kansas City, Kansas Police Dep't, No. 25-2308-KHV-TJJ, 2025 WL 2495387, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 29, 2025).

Court declines to allow amendment in this form. Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 35) is DENIED. Plaintiff should review Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and D. Kan. R. 15.1 and file any amendment, with Defendants’ express agreement, no later than March 6, 2026.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated February 25, 2026, at Wichita, Kansas.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer GWYNNE E. BIRZER U.S. Magistrate Judge