Lee v. Yellow Checker Star Transportation Taxi Management ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 William Alexander Lee, Case No. 2:23-cv-00919-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Yellow Checker Star Transportation Taxi 9 Management, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff 13 does not attach a proposed amended complaint as required under Local Rule 15-1(a). While the 14 Court previously liberally construed Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint as his proposed 15 amended complaint, the Court will not do so again here. This is because Plaintiff’s motion to 16 amend appears to be an addendum, rather than an amendment, to the complaint on which he is 17 proceeding. But an amended complaint must be complete in itself, without refence to any prior 18 pleading, because an amended complaint supersedes the original. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 19 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). If the Court were to construe Plaintiff’s motion as his 20 amended complaint, that would mean that Plaintiff has abandoned nearly all of his factual 21 allegations and has abandoned his Family and Medical Leave Act claim (the one claim on which 22 he is currently proceeding). 23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (ECF 24 No. 21) is denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff a 25 copy of this order. 26 DATED: September 24, 2024 27 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS