Raymond McGovern, Appellant v. 018 (2017)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance; the opposition thereto and motion for certification of questions of District of Columbia law to the D.C. Court of Appeals; the reply in support of the motion for summary affirmance, which includes an opposition to the motion for certification; and the reply in support of the motion for certification, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be denied. The merits of the parties' positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam).

Because the court has determined that summary disposition is not in order, the Clerk is instructed to calendar this case for presentation to a merits panel. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for certification of questions of District of Columbia law to the D.C. Court of Appeals be referred to the merits panel to which this appeal is assigned. The parties are directed to address in their briefs the issues presented in the motion for certification, rather than incorporate those arguments by reference.

Per Curiam