AZAMY vs CELESTICA, LLC, A GEORGIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

24CV059992: AZAMY vs CELESTICA, LLC, A GEORGIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment filed by Celestica, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company (Defendant) CRS# 085587906320 in Department 21

Tentative Ruling - 08/28/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee

The Motion re: Amend Judgment filed by Celestica, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company on 08/11/2026 is Granted.

The Motion of defendant to amend Final Judgment is GRANTED.

On 12/30/25, the parties entered into a class action settlement agreement, on 1/6/26 the Court granted preliminary approval, on 1/26/26, defendant provided the “Class Data” for class notice, on 6/2/26 the Court granted the motion for final approval, and on 6/12/26 the court entered judgment.

In August 2026, defendant became aware of a new class action and in that context examined the list of employees that it provided as “Class Data” and discovered that twenty-four (24) employees had been omitted from the Class Data provided in this case. On 8/5/26, counsel for Defendants instructed administrator Phoenix to halt all payments to qualifying class members scheduled for 8/13/26, until further notice, and Phoenix confirmed it would hold the check disbursement. (White Decl. para 5.)

Defendant argues that it should be permitted to submit amended “Class Data,” invoke the “Escalator Clause,” and then pay an increased amount in this case to extend the class release to the 24 newly identified employees. Class counsel argues the settlement and “Class Data” did not include the 24 employees, that judgment has been entered, and Defendants cannot make a substantive change in the judgment.

Substantively, this motion presents issues of contract interpretation and the intent of the parties in entering into the settlement. (Civil Code 1636, 1639, 1643.) The parties intended to settle the class claims. The scope of the class is defined by para 1.4. The release at para 5.1 releases the claims of the persons within the class definition, which would arguably include the 25 persons. To implement the settlement, the settlement process required defendant to provide “class data” within 21 days after preliminary approval. Under para 7.4 the administrator sent class notice to the persons identified in the class data. (Bokhour Dec filed 5/6/26, Exh B [Agreement].)

The escalator clause at para 8 states “Defendant estimates there are a total of 71,233 Workweeks as of July 11, 2025 (i.e., as of the date the Parties participated in the final day of mediation” and that if the actual number of workweeks is 10% or more than this estimate then the Defendant has the option to either increase the settlement amount or to decrease the class size. The escalator clause does not set a time frame for when Defendant can invoke the escalator clause.

The Agreement at para 12.5 states that the parties are to cooperate in implementing the 24CV059992: AZAMY vs CELESTICA, LLC, A GEORGIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment filed by Celestica, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company (Defendant) CRS# 085587906320 in Department 21 settlement. Regarding “Class Data,” para 4.2 states: “Defendants have a continuing duty to immediately notify Class Counsel if they discover that the Class Data omitted class member identifying information and to provide corrected or updated Class Data as soon as reasonably feasible.” Regarding class notice, para 7.4.5 states that “If the Administrator, Defendants or Class Counsel is contacted by or otherwise discovers any persons who believe they should have been included in the Class Data and should have received Class Notice, the Parties will expeditiously meet and confer in person or by telephone, and in good faith in an effort to agree on whether to include them as Class Members.”

The Court finds that the agreement was intended to resolve the class claims of all the persons within the class definition and required the parties to cooperate in the settlement administration process to give effect to that purpose.

The Court finds that the agreement para 4.2 expected Defendant to provide complete “Class Data” within 21 days of preliminary approval, but at para 4.2 and 7.4.5 also provided for the possibility that Defendant might discover names at a later date. Defendant may identify employees at a later date and invoke the para 8 Escalator clause at a later date.

It is not too late to give effect to the terms of the agreement and the intent of the parties. Defendant disclosed the 24 names after entry of judgment, but before the funds have been distributed to the members of the class. (White Decl. para 5.) This timing permits Defendant to pay the additional funds and for the administrator to make appropriate changes regarding how much money is distributed to each member of the class.

Plaintiff’s argument that the judgment has been entered and cannot be modified is not persuasive. The Court can modify the judgment under CCP 473 based on Defendant’s showing that there was a mistake and that the current judgment includes incorrect information.

The Final Approval Order and Judgment of 6/12/26 is amended to include the 24 additional Settlement Class members who were omitted from the class list. The Settlement Class includes the 24 additional employees, bringing the total number of Class Members from 538 to 562.

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Defendant has invoked the Escalator Clause. The Gross Settlement Amount is increased from $2,200,000.00 to $2,206,380.00 pursuant to the Escalator Clause (Agt, para 8). Defendants must fund the additional $6,380.00 within 5 court days of this order.

Settlement administration will proceed on two tracks – one for the 538 initially identified persons and one for the 24 newly identified persons.

For the 538 initially identified persons, there is no change from the current procedure. The notice

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV059992: AZAMY vs CELESTICA, LLC, A GEORGIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment filed by Celestica, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company (Defendant) CRS# 085587906320 in Department 21 and opt-out period has been completed. The Court finds that an additional notice to the 538 initially identified persons is not required. CRC 3.766(c) states that the court determines “whether notice to class members is necessary.” The initial notice provided information on “workweeks” and then stated that “Based on Defendants’ records, and the Parties’ current assumptions” a class member would receive an amount.

It stated: “The actual amount you may receive will likely be different and will depend on a number of factors.” (Bokhour Dec filed 5/6/26 [Class notice].) There has been no material change in the terms of the settlement as to those persons. (Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 55-56 [changes did not require additional notice].)

For the 538 initially identified persons, the Claims Administrator must promptly calculate the funds payable to those persons in light of the Escalator Clause and commence distribution to those persons. For purposes of calculating the amounts due to each person, the administrator may assume that none of the 24 newly identified persons will opt out of the class.

For the 24 newly identified persons, the notice and opt-out period has not been commenced or completed. The parties must promptly meet and confer and determine an amended class notice for those persons and send notice to those persons. Under Agreement 7.4.5, the parties may determine the “deadline dates in the Class Notice” for the opt-out period. Following the opt-out period, the Claims Administrator must calculate and distribute the appropriate funds to those persons.

This order does not preclude the parties from stipulating to another reasonable means of giving effect to the Escalator Clause, providing notice to the 24 newly identified persons, and otherwise administering the settlement agreement.

PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by 04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notify opposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the court’s website: www.alameda.courts.ca.gov.

If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, “parties to appear,” please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21. If no party has contested the tentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.