UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JASMINE TORO, Plaintiff, 22-CV-6088 (JPO) -v- ORDER CRABTREE & EVELYN, LTD., Defendant.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff Jasmine Toro sued Defendant Crabtree & Evelyn, Ltd. asserting claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act,

, et seq., New York State Human Rights Law,

et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-101 et seq. (See ECF No. 1.) On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proposed default judgment against Defendant. (See ECF No. 14.) The docket did not reflect service of the motion for default judgment on Defendant. On June 23, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a letter by June 27, 2023, advising the Court as to the status of service of Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. (See ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff did not file a letter. On October 13, 2023, the Court directed Plaintiff to respond within 7 days to the Court’s order dated June 23, 2023, and warned Plaintiff that failure to respond would result in a dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. (See ECF No. 17.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s orders dated June 23, 2023, and October 13, 2023. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action “if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with the rules or a court order.” Baptiste v. Sommers,

(2d Cir. 2014). It is settled that Rule 41(b) “gives the district court authority to dismiss a plaintiff's case sua sponte for failure to prosecute.” LeSane v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2001). Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate here. Plaintiff was “given notice that further delay would result in dismissal,” U.S. ex rel. Drake v. Norden Sys., Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2004), and there is prejudice where Plaintiff has caused an “unreasonable delay.” Lesane,

. Dismissal without prejudice appropriately strikes a balance “between alleviating court calendar congestion and protecting a party’s right to due process and a fair chance to be heard.” Jd. at 209. Accordingly, this action 1s dismissed without prejudice to refiling. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 30, 2023 New York, New York

United States District Judge