John W. Danforth Company v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America and...

JUN 10 2026 ent JOHN W. DANFORTH COMPANY, Cae tes ES Plaintiff, v. 24-CV-910 (JLS) (HKS) TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA and LP CIMINELLI CONSTRUCTION CORP., Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff John W. Danforth Company (“Danforth”) commenced this action on August 5, 2024, alleging breach of contract against Defendant Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”) arising out of Travelers’ denial of insurance coverage for certain costs incurred by Danforth in connection with its work on a construction project. See Dkt. 1-2. On September 27, 2024, Travelers removed this action to this Court based on federal diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. 1.

The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt.

4.

Travelers filed a motion to dismiss on October 4, 2024. Dkt. 3. Danforth opposed the motion, Dkt. 8, and Travelers replied. Dkt. 9. On June 11, 2025, Judge Schroeder issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which: (1) reeommended that this Court deny Danforth’s request to remand this action to New York Supreme Court; and (2) grant Travelers’ motion to dismiss. See Dkt. 11.

Danforth objected to the R&R. Dkt. 14. Specifically, it argues that the R&R erroneously denied Danforth’s motion to remand by refusing to consider Defendant LP Ciminelli’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 3.1 Additionally, Danforth also argues that the R&R erred in granting Travelers’ motion to dismiss by the R&R’s application of a suit clause in the underlying insurance contract. Jd. at 6-8. Travelers opposed the objections, Dkt. 18, and Danforth replied. Dkt. 21.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b}(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review of the R&R’s recommendations, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Page numbers refer to the CM/ECF generated numbering in the header of each page.

Schroeder’s recommended disposition of Travelers’ motion to dismiss? and Danforth’s request for remand to New York State Supreme Court.

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court DENIES Danforth’s request for remand and GRANTS Travelers’ [38] motion to dismiss.

The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2026 Buffalo, New York ~ — JOHN L-SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This includes dismissal of the action as to Defendant LP Ciminelli. As set forth in the R&R, Danforth asserts no claims against LP Ciminelli in the Complaint and seeks no relief from it.