Riley v. Jackson Hole Burger, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-01168
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Riley v. Jackson Hole Burger, Inc., Judge Woods adjourned the initial conference after the defendant failed to appear and set an August 1 deadline.
Amanie Riley and Jackson Hole Burger, Inc.; the order postpones the initial pretrial conference, sets an expected deadline for a possible default-judgment application, and directs Riley to serve the order on the defendant.
What happened
In Riley v. Jackson Hole Burger, Inc., the Clerk entered a certificate of default against Jackson Hole Burger, Inc. on July 9, 2025. The defendant had not appeared as of the order’s date.
Because the defendant had not appeared, the court adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for July 15 until a later, unspecified date. The court expected any request for an order requiring the defendant to explain why a default judgment should not be entered to be filed by August 1, 2025, and to follow the court’s rules.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also explained that a default judgment could be entered only after the court determined that the complaint’s factual allegations established legal responsibility, while treating damage allegations differently. Amanie Riley must serve the order on Jackson Hole Burger, Inc. and keep proof of service.
The detailed version
- Riley v. Jackson Hole Burger, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01168
- Gregory Woods
- July 11, 2025
Background
On July 9, 2025, the Clerk of Court entered a certificate of default against Jackson Hole Burger, Inc. The defendant had not appeared in the action as of July 11, 2025.
Court’s Action
The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for July 15, 2025, until a later date that was not specified in the order. The court expected any application for an order to show cause—an order requiring the defendant to explain why default judgment should not be entered—to be filed no later than August 1, 2025. The court stated that the application must comply fully with its Individual Rules, including Attachment A to those rules.
The order did not enter default judgment. Instead, it reminded the parties that before entering default judgment, the court must determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations establish liability as a matter of law. In making that determination, the court will accept factual allegations as true, except allegations concerning damages, and will draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
Additional Direction
Amanie Riley was directed to serve a copy of the order on Jackson Hole Burger, Inc. and retain proof of service. The opinion also noted that the court’s decision in Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 3d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2024), may be instructive on whether liability can be established in this case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.