1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

WESTERN DIVISION 

Delfino Zarate Munoz, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Case No. 20 CV 50222 

 v. ) 

 ) Magistrate Judge Lisa A. Jensen 

Ye and Lin, Inc. and Desheng Ye, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER 

 

 The Court finds that the parties’ settlement agreement and release represents a fair and 

reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 

et seq., and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS § 105/1 et seq. Accordingly, the parties’ 

motion for court approval of settlement [45] is granted and this action is dismissed initially without 

prejudice, with the Court retaining jurisdiction for the limited purpose of enforcing the terms of 

the settlement agreement, if necessary. Absent a motion brought on or before February 26, 2022 

to enforce the settlement agreement or for an extension of time, the dismissal without prejudice 

shall automatically convert to a dismissal with prejudice. Civil case terminated. 

STATEMENT 

 On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff Delfino Zarate Munoz filed his complaint against Defendants 

Ye and Lin, Inc. and Desheng Ye for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), 820 ILCS § 105/1 et seq. 

Plaintiff alleges that he worked at Defendants’ restaurant as a dishwasher, cleaner, and food 

preparer. He alleges that Defendants paid him on an improper salary basis, failed to pay an 

overtime premium when he worked in excess of forty hours per week, and failed to fully 

compensate him for all hours worked. Defendants deny liability or any violation of the FLSA or 

IMWL. 

 Since the filing of the complaint in this case, the parties conducted discovery pursuant to 

the Court’s scheduling order, Dkt 24, and updated the Court on the status of discovery and ongoing 

Case: 3:20-cv-50222 Document #: 46 Filed: 02/18/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:210
2 

settlement negotiations. On February 17, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion for court approval 

of their settlement agreement. Dkt. 45.1

 

 The Court must determine whether the FLSA settlement “represents a fair and reasonable 

resolution of a bona fide dispute.” Salcedo v. D’Arcy Buick GMC, Inc., 227 F. Supp. 3d 960, 961 

(N.D. Ill. 2016); see also Walton v. United Consumers Club, Inc., 786 F.2d 303, 306 (7th Cir. 

1986) (“Courts . . . have refused to enforce wholly private settlements [of FLSA claims].”). “If the 

proposed settlement reflects a reasonable compromise over contested issues, the court should 

approve the settlement.” Briggs v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 15 CV 10447, 2016 WL 

7018566, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2016). 

 The Court has reviewed the parties’ settlement agreement and release and the information 

provided in their motion. The Court finds that there is a bona fide dispute with respect to Plaintiff’s 

claims under the FLSA and IMWL. Plaintiff alleges he was paid on an illegal salary basis, was not 

paid overtime wages, and was not fully compensated for all hours worked. Defendants dispute the 

number of hours worked and that overtime was not paid. The Court also finds that the total 

settlement amount fair and reasonable given the legal dispute between the parties and the inherent 

risks of litigation. The agreement was the result of discovery and extensive negotiations. The 

parties are represented by counsel, who have negotiated in good faith at arm’s length. The Court 

also finds that payment to Plaintiff’s counsel for attorney fees and costs is reasonable. 

 Therefore, the Court approves the parties’ settlement agreement and release. See Lynn’s 

Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 1982) (“If a settlement in an 

employee FLSA suit does reflect a reasonable compromise over issues, such as FLSA coverage or 

computation of back wages, that are actually in dispute; we allow the district court to approve the 

settlement in order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.”). Pursuant to the 

parties’ agreement, Dkt. 45-1, this action is dismissed initially without prejudice, with the Court 

retaining jurisdiction for the limited purpose of enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement, if 

necessary. Absent a motion brought on or before February 26, 2022 to enforce the settlement 

agreement or for an extension of time, the dismissal without prejudice shall automatically convert 

to a dismissal with prejudice. 

Date: February 18, 2021 By: ______________________ 

 Lisa A. Jensen 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

 

 

1

 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all proceedings 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Dkt. 38.

Case: 3:20-cv-50222 Document #: 46 Filed: 02/18/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:211