Michael A. Hall v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., Appellant, 946 F.2d 1564 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the response thereto and the reply and cross appellant's motion to hold appeal in abeyance and to defer briefing, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The district court acted well within its discretion to grant a new trial on the ground that the jury misunderstood its charge. See Schneider v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 658 F.2d 835, 849 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 994 (1982). The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining motion be dismissed as moot.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.