# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Rockwood Bank v. Gaia

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_0086%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1999
- **Citation:** 528 U.S. 968

## Text

Supreme Court, U.S

(v) FILED
99 507 SEP 21 1999

N2 :
a
In The
Supreme Court of The United States

October Term 1998
OF

ROCKWOOD BANK
Petitioner,
Vv.

M. MICHAEL GAIA,
Respondent.

4
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States
Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit
4

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

+

DAVID W. WHITE*
Sloan, Listrom, Eisenbarth
Sloan & Glassman, L.L.C.
10975 Benson Dr., Suite 280
Overland Park, KS 66210

(913) 661-0050

Attorney for Petitioners
*Counsel of Record

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DOCUMENT SERVICE.
Post OFFICE BOX 7506@KANSAS CITY, MO 64116@888-453-2424

bSvy

:

QUESTION PRESENTED
FOR REVIEW
During a _ bank examination, should _ the
communications between bank officers and federal bank

examiners be protected by an absolute privilege?

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Question Presssbedl..i.:3: iecosncadabieenunesaceees i
Talile of Contemttsiiicissiedsscdaaiens ance il
Table of Authorities: ..::: dai aeiaienanall iil
Opinions Belew... ice |
Statement of Jurisdiction...................ceeeeee 2
Statutes Involved in the Case..................00 2
Statement of the Cass. :..icsseusssaanee meena 5
Reasons for Granting the Writ.................... ll
THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE IT
IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT BANK-BANK
EXAMINER COMMUNICATION FROM LIABILITY
TO THIRD PARTIES.
COnchisi00.... ..«.+ i. 8 ‘ ik aa a » “a res os a
Lol SR RI SS RIE CEES RP eR i i mii at sa as as y a
; . ; i
‘ - :

File Stamped

U.S. District Court
Eastern District

St. Louis

PC:PARTIES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION
M. MICHAEL GAIA, )
Plaintiff )
v. ) No. 4:96CV1559 FRB
ROCK WOOD BANK, )
Defendant. )
Apdx B - 40

ORDER

Presently pending before the court are Plaintiff's
Motion for New Tnial on Plaintiffs Age Discrimination
Claims (filed August 25, 1997/Docket No. 43), and
Defendant's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
Law, or In the Alternative, Motion for New Trial (filed
August 28, 1997/Docket No. 44). All matters are pending
before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, with
consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c).

All of the issues raised in the pending motions were
raised by the parties either prior to or during the trial of the
case. After consideration of the pending motions and
memoranda and Memoranda in Opposition, the undersigned
concludes that the rulings previously made by the Court were
proper and correct for the reasons previously stated by the

Court, all of which are a matter of record.

Apdx B - 41

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion
for New Trial on Plaintiff's Age Discrimination Claims
(Docket No. 43) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s
Renewed Motion for judgment as a Matter of'Law, or In the

Alternative, Motion for New Trial (Docket No 44) is denied.

(s/ Frederick R. Buckles

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated this 14th day of October, 1997.

Apdx B - 42

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_0086%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.