Williams v. Bettis Asphalt & Construction, 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
1 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).
Case 6:25-cv-01151-AWM-GEB Document 37 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 2

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
Case 6:25-cv-01151-AWM-GEB Document 37 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 2