Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03700/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03700-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3700

___________

St. Paul Reinsurance Company, Ltd., *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Nikola Hristov, doing business as *

Nick’s Bar & Grill, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2005

Filed: December 12, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

St. Paul Reinsurance Company (St. Paul) filed a declaratory judgment action

against Nikola Hristov, doing business as Nick’s Bar and Grill, seeking a declaration

that it did not owe him any coverage on his insurance policy, and requesting

reimbursement for attorney fees incurred in this action and payments made under the

policy. Mr. Hristov counterclaimed for breach of insurance policy and vexatious

refusal to pay his insurance claim. The district court1

 granted summary judgment to

Appellate Case: 04-3700 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2005 Entry ID: 1984794
of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

St. Paul on its claims and on the counterclaims. For the following reasons, we reject

Mr. Hristov’s arguments on appeal. 

Contrary to Mr. Hristov’s belief, his former pro se status did not require the

district court to allow withdrawal of his deemed admissions. Cf. Bennett v. Dr

Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 295 F.3d 805, 807-08 (8th Cir. 2002) (affirming district

court’s denial of relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), when moving party

offered only his pro se status as ground for his failure to respond to summary

judgment motion); Carman v. Treat, 7 F.3d 1379, 1381 (8th Cir. 1993) (pro se status

does not entitle party to disregard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Nor did the

court abuse its discretion in awarding to St. Paul attorney fees related to its motion to

compel discovery, because St. Paul wrote to Mr. Hristov more than three weeks before

it filed the motion and again requested discovery responses, Mr. Hristov offered no

substantial justification for his failure to respond, and the award was not unjust. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A); cf. Interactive Prods. Corp. v. a2z Mobile Office

Solutions, Inc., 326 F.3d 687, 701 (6th Cir. 2003) (reviewing award of fees under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(B) for abuse of discretion). Finally, while Mr. Hristov contends

the district court should not have encouraged him to retain new counsel if it did not

intend to allow adequate trial-preparation time, the court in fact extended the trial date,

and an even longer extension would not have remedied the fatal effect of his deemed

admissions. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3700 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2005 Entry ID: 1984794