Teman v. Deel, Inc. — Entry #25: ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Case 1:25-cv-05852-JMF               Document 25           Filed 01/12/26   Page 1 of 2


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        X
                                                                        :
 ARI B. TEMAN, et al.,                                                  :
                                              Plaintiffs,               :
                                                                        :       25-CV-5852 (JMF)
                            -v-                                         :
                                                                        :     ORDER OF DISMISSAL
 DEEL, INC., et al.,                                                    :
                                              Defendants.               :
                                                                        :
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:

        The Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have long recognized that federal courts are

vested with the authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to

prosecute, a power that is “necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of

pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash

R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see also United States ex rel. Drake v. Norden Sys., Inc.,

375 F.3d 248, 250 (2d Cir. 2004). Because dismissal is “one of the harshest sanctions at a trial

court’s disposal,” it must be “reserved for use only in the most extreme circumstances.” Id. at

251. In considering a Rule 41(b) dismissal, courts must weigh five factors: “(1) the duration of

the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court order, (2) whether plaintiff was on notice that

failure to comply would result in dismissal, (3) whether the defendants are likely to be prejudiced

by further delay in 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) whether the judge has

adequately considered a sanction less drastic than dismissal.” Lucas v. Miles, 84 F.3d 532, 535

(2d Cir. 1996).


        Case 1:25-cv-05852-JMF           Document 25         Filed 01/12/26     Page 2 of 2


       In this case, Plaintiff was on notice after this Court’s December 5, 2025 order to show

cause, see ECF No. 24, that any failure to communicate with the Court by January 5, 2026, as to

whether Plaintiff has served Defendants or had good cause for why service had not been effected

would result in dismissal. In light of Plaintiff’s lack of communication to that end, dismissal of

the case is warranted. However, given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court finds that dismissal

without prejudice is more appropriate than dismissal with prejudice. See Waters v. Camacho,

288 F.R.D. 70, 71 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding that “the lesser sanction of dismissal without

prejudice . . . is appropriate in order to strike the appropriate balance between the right to due

process and the need to clear the docket and avoid prejudice to defendants” (internal quotation

marks omitted)).

       Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the case is dismissed without prejudice for

failure to prosecute. This Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal

from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to close

the case and mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

       SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2026                                __________________________________
       New York, New York                                       JESSE M. FURMAN
                                                              United States District Judge


                                                  2