UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USDC SDNY DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: YAJAIRA BEZARES, DATE FILED: 12/2/2 024 Plaintiff, 1:22-cv-7034 (MKV) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL BUYK CORPORATION, Defendant. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: This case has been stayed because of a bankruptcy proceeding commenced by Defendant in March 2022 [ECF No. 11]. In an Order dated July 16, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a status letter by August 1, 2024 [ECF No. 12 (“July 2024 Order”)]. The Court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. July 2024 Order at 1. However, Plaintiff nevertheless failed to file the required status letter. As such, the Court issued an Order To Show Cause dated August 16, 2024 in which the Court directed Plaintiff to file a letter by September 5, 2024 showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute [ECF No. 13 (“OTSC”)]. The Court again warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See OTSC at 1. To date, however, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Order To Show Cause or to take any other action to prosecute this case. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a district court to dismiss an action with prejudice if the plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Second Circuit has instructed district courts to consider the following factors before dismissing an action for failure to prosecute: (1) the duration of the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply; (2) whether the plaintiff was on notice that failure to prosecute or comply could result in dismissal; (3) whether the defendants are likely to be prejudiced by further delay of the proceedings; (4) a balancing of the court’s interest in managing its docket with the plaintiff’s interest in receiving a fair chance to be heard; and (5) the possibility of imposing a sanction less drastic than dismissal. Baptiste v. Sommers,

(2d Cir. 2014) (Lucas v. Miles,

(2d Cir. 1996)).

The Court has carefully considered each of these five factors. This case has been pending for more than two years, and Plaintiff has not taken any action to prosecute this case since it was filed. More importantly, Plaintiff has ignored two court orders directing him to act over the course of the past five months [ECF Nos. 12, 13]. Courts in this District have dismissed cases for shorter spans of noncompliance. See, e.g., Chavis v. City of New York,

, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2018), report and recommendation adopted,

(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2018). After Plaintiff ignored the Court’s July 2024 Order, the Court issued an Order To Show Cause that gave Plaintiff clear notice that “this case will be dismissed” for a further failure to comply. OTSC at 1 (emphasis in original); see Mitchell v. Lyons Pro. Servs., Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal for failure to prosecute where the court “indisputably gave notice” to

the plaintiff that the case would be dismissed for “future transgressions”). It prejudices Defendant and burdens the Court to maintain this action open on the Court’s docket indefinitely in the hope that further prodding from the Court will prompt Plaintiff to reappear. See Davison v. Grillo,

, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2006). The Court has considered lesser sanctions but the Court has few options where, as here, Plaintiff is pro se and does not respond to court orders. See Ruzsa v. Rubenstein & Sendy Attys at L.,

(2d Cir. 2008). As such, the Court concludes that dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court respectfully is requested to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff at the address of record and to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 2, 2024 New York, New York / (/ la □□ Lg Ke Mogl United States District Judge