Riley v. Jackson Hole Burger, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-01168
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Riley v. Jackson Hole Burger, Judge Woods denied Riley’s default-judgment motion without prejudice because it failed to follow required court rules.
Amanie Riley’s motion for default judgment was denied without prejudice, and Jackson Hole Burger, Inc. remains the defendant against whom a certificate of default had been entered. Riley may submit the application required by the court’s order.
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 court then reminded Amanie Riley that an application seeking default judgment had to follow the court’s individual rules.
Riley filed a motion for default judgment on August 1, 2025. The court denied the motion without prejudice because it did not comply with those rules.
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed Riley to file an application for an order to show cause addressing the required issues, including why judgment should be entered in light of an earlier court decision. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Riley v. Jackson Hole Burger, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01168
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
Amanie Riley brought this case on behalf of herself and others described as similarly situated. On July 9, 2025, the Clerk of Court entered a certificate of default against Jackson Hole Burger, Inc. On July 11, 2025, the court reminded Riley that any application for an order to show cause why default judgment should not be entered had to comply fully with the court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, including Attachment A.
Motion and ruling
Riley filed a motion for default judgment on August 1, 2025. The court denied the motion without prejudice because it did not comply with the court’s Individual Rules. The court directed Riley to file an application for an order to show cause why default judgment should not be granted.
The court stated that the application must include a memorandum of law addressing the issues listed in Attachment A. The court also expected any renewed application to explain, among other matters, why Riley was entitled to judgment in light of the court’s decision in Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 3d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2024). The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 18.
Effect of the order
The order did not decide whether Riley is entitled to default judgment. It rejected the filed motion for failure to follow the court’s required procedures and directed Riley to submit a properly supported application.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.