Jones v. Daniela's Flower Shop II, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-03681
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jones v. Daniela's Flower Shop, Judge Woods adjourned the conference and set deadlines for plaintiff's possible default-judgment request.
Jones and Daniela's Flower Shop II, Inc.; the order changes the case schedule and sets procedures and deadlines for any request by Jones for default judgment.
What happened
Jones v. Daniela's Flower Shop II, Inc. is a case in which the plaintiff's lawyer asked to postpone the initial conference because the defendant had not appeared or contacted the plaintiff. The lawyer stated that the defendant had been served and that the plaintiff had a certificate of default.
The court moved the initial conference from August 12 to September 24, 2025, and required the joint status letter and proposed case-management plan by September 17. The court also directed the plaintiff to seek an order requiring the defendant to explain why default judgment should not be entered by August 19 if the plaintiff intended to pursue that route.
Judge Gregory H. Woods further explained that any default-judgment request must address whether the allegations establish legal liability and must discuss the court's prior decision in Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads, Inc. The order did not decide liability or enter default judgment, directed service of the order on the defendant, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 11.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Daniela's Flower Shop II, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-03681
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 6, 2025
Background
The plaintiff's counsel asked the court to adjourn the initial conference scheduled for August 12, 2025. Counsel stated that Daniela's Flower Shop II, Inc. had been successfully served but had not appeared or contacted the plaintiff. Counsel also stated that the plaintiff had a certificate of default against the defendant.
What the Court Ordered
The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference to September 24, 2025. It set September 17, 2025, as the deadline for the joint status letter and proposed case-management plan described in the court's May 6, 2025 order.
The court stated that, if the plaintiff intended to pursue default judgment, it expected the plaintiff to seek an order requiring the defendant to show why default judgment should not be entered by August 19, 2025. The court directed the plaintiff to follow Rule 3(G) of the judge's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases.
Default-Judgment Guidance
The court reminded the plaintiff that entering default judgment would require the court to decide whether the allegations establish liability as a matter of law. For that analysis, the court would accept the factual allegations as true, except allegations concerning damages, and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. The court cited Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2009), and expected the plaintiff's memorandum of law to explain why judgment would be appropriate in light of Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 3d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
Other Directions and Effect
The court directed the plaintiff to serve a copy of the order on the defendant and retain proof of service. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 11. The order addressed scheduling and the procedure for a possible default-judgment request; it did not enter default judgment or decide the merits of the plaintiff's claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.