I believe that the correct description for the statement is Post Hoc.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (latin to: after this, therefore because of this) better known as post hoc fallacy is a logical fallacy that sustain; since event Y followed event X, Y must have been caused by X.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because correlations appears to be casuality. The fallacy lies in a conclusion based only in the order of events and not taking into account other possible factors potentially responsible for the result.
In the example given the resutl is undesirable and when this happens the pattern is often combined with the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent assuming the logical inverse. If you not invite Julie next time it will not rain.
Another example to try to make it more clear in the real world could be a sportsman who adopts a pre-match ritual because one time he did the same before a game and got a good result. The reasoning here is exactly the same as in the statement given; the activity preceded the success so the activity must have contributed to it and by repeating it on another match it would cause the same effect.
A variation of the Post hoc fallacy is called inflated casuality, this fallacy tries to boil down a happening to one singular cause when actually the event is more complex than that. The idea is not completely false but it is reduced to the minimum, this is why it´s called inflated.
I hope that the answer help you to understand a little more about the post hoc fallacies in general. Greetings.
