Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02964/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02964-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2964

___________

The Society of Lloyd’s, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Robert W. Fuerst; Hord Hardin, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendants, *

*

Harold F. Ilg, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Walter A. Klein; Meade M. McCain; *

John J. Shillington; Cynthia J. *

Todorovich; Michael B. Todorovich, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: July 5, 2005 

Filed: July 11,2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 04-2964 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2005 Entry ID: 1926199
1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Harold F. Ilg appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in a diversity action brought by The Society of Lloyd’s seeking recognition and

enforcement of a foreign money judgment. For reversal, he argues that the district

court’s handling of this case violated his due process rights. We have carefully

reviewed the record, see Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720, 722 (8th Cir. 2004)

(reviewing de novo claims of constitutional error), cert. denied, 73 U.S.L.W. 3623

(U.S. May 31, 2005), and we find no basis for concluding that Ilg’s due process rights

were violated by the district court, see Herts v. Smith, 345 F.3d 581, 587 (8th Cir.

2003) (due process generally requires adequate notice and opportunity to be heard at

meaningful time and in meaningful manner). Further, the undisputed evidence

established that summary judgment was properly granted against Ilg. See Mo. Rev.

Stat. §§ 511.770-787 (2000) (Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments

Recognition Act); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, Located at 9638

Chicago Heights, St. Louis, Mo., 27 F.3d 327, 329 n.1 (8th Cir. 1994) (failure to

respond to summary judgment motion does not automatically compel resolution in

favor of moving party; reviewing court must still determine whether entry of

summary judgment was appropriate). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as moot Ilg’s

pending motion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2964 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2005 Entry ID: 1926199