Neal v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 118

ORDER denying as moot 70 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; 84 Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing; and 90 Synchrony Bank's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 10/20/20. (mga)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-022-KDB-DCK
CURTIS NEAL, on behalf of himself and others )
similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WAL-MART STORES, INC., d/b/a
)
WALMART, and SYNCHRONY BANK,
)
f/k/a SYNCHRONY RETAIL BANK,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )
)
ROY CAMPBELL, on behalf of himself and all )
others similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SYNCHRONY BANK,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel
Defendant To Answer And Respond To Written Discovery Requests, And To Compel Defendant
To Produce Documents” (Document No. 70); “Plaintiff’s Motion For A Hearing…” (Document
No. 84); and “Synchrony Bank’s Motion For Sanctions” (Document No. 90). These motions have
been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate
review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motions and the record, the undersigned
will deny the motions as moot.

The undersigned observes that the parties filed a “Notice Of Class Action Settlement”
(Document No. 113) on August 18, 2020. In their Notice, the parties requested that this Court
“deny all pending motions as moot.” (Document No. 113, p. 1). In addition, the undersigned notes
that the Honorable Kenneth D. Bell has granted preliminary approval of the parties’ settlement and
scheduled a hearing regarding final approval for March 15, 2021. See (Document No. 116)
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Defendant To
Answer And Respond To Written Discovery Requests, And To Compel Defendant To Produce
Documents” (Document No. 70); “Plaintiff’s Motion For A Hearing…” (Document No. 84); and
“Synchrony Bank’s Motion For Sanctions” (Document No. 90) are DENIED AS MOOT. These
motions are denied without prejudice to being re-filed if the proposed settlement is not approved
by the Court.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 20, 2020

2