ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

On May 5, 2017, the court determined this case had settled. ECF No. 46. The court ordered the parties to file dispositional documents by June 19, 2017. Id. That deadline passed, yet no dispositional documents were filed. On August 2, 2017, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause within seven days why this case should not be dismissed. ECF No. 47. Plaintiff never responded. Accordingly, and as explained below, the court now dismisses this case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Under Rule 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Before doing so, the court must weigh five factors including: "`(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.'" Id. at 1260-61 (quoting Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).

The first two factors support dismissal here. This action has been pending for over two years and has reached the stage, set by the court's June 7, 2016 scheduling order, for trial preparation. See ECF No. 28 (final pretrial conference set for October 20, 2017; trial set for December 11, 2017). Plaintiff has not complied with court orders or otherwise taken any action in nearly six months. See ECF Nos. 45-47. The third factor, prejudice to defendants, also supports dismissal as defendants would be disadvantaged if the court allowed this action, which plaintiff appears to have abandoned, to continue against them. Although the fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, generally weighs against dismissal, the factor is neutral here: the parties have purportedly settled and plaintiff has remained inattentive to finalizing settlement. Finally, the fifth factor also favors dismissal, as the court has granted plaintiff ample time to respond or otherwise finalize the purported settlement, but to no avail, leaving the court with no suitable alternative to dismissal.

Having considered the five Ferdik factors, the court now DISMISSES this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

This resolves ECF No. 47. The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to close this case.