ORDER DENYING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY INTERLINEATION

JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.

Before the court is Plaintiff David Borden's unopposed motion to amend his complaint "by interlineation." (Mot. (Dkt. # 29); see also Prop. Interlineated Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 29-1).) An interlineated amended complaint does not comply with the Western District of Washington's local rules. The local rules require a party seeking to amend a pleading to attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to its motion or stipulation seeking amendment and also require that the party "indicate on the proposed amended pleading how it differs from the pleading that it amends by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underling or highlighting the text to be added." See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 15. The moving party files the interlineated version of the amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion or stipulation to amend and not as the amended pleading itself. See id. Further, the court believes that later reference or citation to an interlineated pleading might be confusing or lend uncertainty to the claims at issue. The court wishes to avoid any such confusion, particularly in the context of a class action. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1) ¶¶ 21-28 (setting forth the class allegations).) Accordingly, the court DENIES Mr. Borden's motion (Dkt. # 29), but without prejudice to filing a motion to amend his complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's local rules.