Suris v. Central Yeshiva Tomchei Tmimim Lubavitz Of The United States Of America, 1:20-cv-04229

Plaintiff Yaroslav Suris sued Central Yeshiva under the ADA, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, alleging the yeshiva's website is inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing users.
Suris served the defendant; the defendant did not answer. An answer was due in October 2020.
Magistrate Judge Bloom ordered Suris to take action against the defendant by November 19, 2020, and warned that failure to do so would prompt a recommendation of dismissal.
Suris did not move for default or otherwise prosecute the case; Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a sua sponte report recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute on January 14, 2021.
Suris's counsel filed a timely objection asserting a 56-day delay caused by a filing error and asking the Court to overrule the recommendation.
The district court reviewed the five-factor test for dismissal for failure to prosecute and, weighing the factors, overruled the objection and dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) on June 3, 2021.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute was warranted	Delay was a 56-day filing error; court should not dismiss	Defendant did not respond to the complaint	Dismissal affirmed under Rule 41(b) after balancing the Drake factors
Whether the 56-day delay was unreasonable	Short, inadvertent filing error; minimal delay	No active defense—no argument submitted	Delay weighed lightly in favor of dismissal (not dispositive)
Whether plaintiff received notice that further delay could lead to dismissal	Implicitly contested	N/A	Plaintiff received clear notice by Magistrate Judge's order; this factor weighed strongly for dismissal
Whether lesser sanctions would be effective	Requested leniency through objection	N/A	Court found lesser sanctions unlikely to reengage plaintiff; dismissal appropriate (citing Ruzsa)

U.S. ex rel. Drake v. Norden Sys., Inc., 375 F.3d 248 (2d Cir. 2004) (articulates five-factor test for dismissal for failure to prosecute)
Ruzsa v. Rubenstein & Sendy Attys. at Law, 520 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2008) (lesser sanctions unlikely to revive prosecution after notice supports dismissal)