DALAL v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC.

Opinion

NOT FOR PULICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

AAKASH DALAL, Civil Action No. 24-10380 (SDW) (AME) Plaintiff, ORDER v. June 20, 2025 CLEARVIEW AI, INC., Defendant.

WIGENTON, District Judge. Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) entered on May 1, 2025, by Magistrate Judge André M. Espinosa (D.E. 14) recommending granting Defendant Clearview AI, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) (D.E. 6). This Court has reviewed the reasons set forth in the R&R by Judge Espinosa.1 Based on the foregoing, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the R&R of Judge Espinosa (D.E. 14) is ADOPTED as the conclusion of law of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (D.E. 6) is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED.2

1 No objection to the R&R was filed.

2 The complaint also named fictional Defendants. “[F]or a court to have diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a plaintiff ‘must specifically allege each party’s citizenship, [and show] that the plaintiff and [each] defendant are citizens of different states.’” Foster v. Pitney Bowes Corp., Civ. No. 11-7303, 2013 WL 487196, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2013) (third alteration in original) (quoting Osuch v. Optima Mach. Corp., Civ. No. 10-6101, 2011 WL 2708464, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2011)), supplemented, Civ. No. 11-7303, 2013 WL 1500683 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2013), and aff’d, 549 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Plaintiff has not done so with regard to the fictional Defendants, so the complaint is dismissed in its entirety. See id. (dismissing John Doe defendants whose citizenship was not alleged). SO ORDERED. /s/ Susan D. Wigenton _ SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J. Orig: Clerk cc: Parties André M. Espinosa, U.S.M.J.