Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court punts the question of whether uninjured class members can be part of a certified damages class, allowing the existing federal circuit split to stand.
- Class certification remains a complex and often challenging procedural stage for any class action.
- Businesses should anticipate continued efforts in the 9th Circuit to certify overbroad class definitions.
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis on procedural grounds as having been "improvidently granted"1 and declined to address the underlying merits question that is at the core of many class certification debates. The Court previously had granted the petition to answer "[w]hether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury."2 Departing from the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh opined that he would have reached the merits and ruled that "[f]ederal courts may not certify a damages class under Rule 23 when, as here, the proposed class includes both injured and uninjured class members."3
Background
Laboratory Corp. (LabCorp) is a clinical diagnostic laboratory with patient service centers that test patient samples. In 2017, as part of an update to its patient service centers, LabCorp introduced self-service kiosks for patient check-ins. Blind and visually impaired patients often required assistance to use these in-center kiosks. In response, LabCorp increased its front desk personnel to assist patients with the kiosks upon request. Despite these front-desk services, legally blind plaintiffs sued LabCorp, claiming the kiosks violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act because they could not use them.4
At class certification, the plaintiff sought to certify a class of all legally blind individuals in California who were unable to use the kiosks due to their disability.5 In May 2022, the district court certified a damages class that consisted of "[a]ll legally blind individuals in California who visited a LabCorp patient service center in California during the applicable limitations period and were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations due to LabCorp's failure to make its e-check-in kiosks accessible to legally blind individuals."6 In August 2022, the district court amended the class definition to consist of "[a]ll legally blind individuals who . . . , due to their disability, were unable to use" LabCorp kiosks in California.7 Importantly, the court stated that, "in refining the class definition, this Order does not materially alter the composition of the class or materially change in any manner" the original May class certification order.8 LabCorp appealed the initial May 2022 order to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the class definition was overbroad as it included patients who never tried, intended or desired to use the check-in kiosks.9 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld the class certification, stating that Rule 23 permits certification even with a de minimis number of uninjured members.10
The Ninth Circuit decision was appealed by LabCorp to the Supreme Court. LabCorp's petition was granted on Jan. 24, 2025, and oral argument was held on April 29, 2025.
At oral argument, class counsel reiterated that LabCorp's petition was moot because its notice of appeal had challenged the class definitions in the district court's May order, which were later superseded in the August order.11 Ultimately, the Court was persuaded by class counsel's procedural point, and the Court issued a one-sentence dismissal of the petition without addressing the merits or directly addressing class counsel's mootness argument.
Dissent by Justice Kavanaugh
Justice Kavanaugh, dissenting, explained that he would have reached the merits and would have held "that a federal court may not certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured members."12 He explained that this was a straightforward decision in light of Rule 23 requirements and the Court's own precedent. Justice Kavanaugh reiterated that Rule 23 requires common questions to predominate, which cannot occur if there are injured and uninjured members in a class. For this point, Justice Kavanaugh quoted the government's oral argument in this case: "'[I]f there are members of a class that aren't even injured, they can't share the same injury with the other class members.'"13
Justice Kavanaugh cautioned that the Ninth Circuit's decision that Rule 23 permits certification even when the class "potentially includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members" would result in overinflated class definitions that, if certified, threaten businesses with massive liability.14
Takeaways
The Court's dismissal of the case means the Ninth Circuit's underlying decision stands and class action practitioners are left to grapple with the consequences and a weakened commonality standard.15 Moreover, the Court's failure to address the merits leaves intact the current federal circuit split on the inclusion of uninjured class members in Rule 23 damages classes.
Businesses should anticipate continued efforts to certify overbroad class definitions, which test the outer bounds of the de minimis exception. We expect this issue to be of greater concern in consumer matters where statutory damages are available, such as violations involving cybersecurity and privacy, consumer protection, civil rights and disability rights.
Contributing author: Summer Associate Lindsey Miller
Footnotes
1. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Davis, No. 24-304, slip op. at 1 (U.S. June 5, 2025).
2. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at i, Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 24-304 (U.S. dismissed June 5, 2025).
3. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, slip op. at 5 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).
4. See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, supra note 2, at 5-6.
5. See id. at 8.
6. Order Re: Motion for Class Certification at 24, Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 2:20-cv-00893-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2022), ECF Doc. 97.
7. Order Re: Motion to Refine Class Definition at 7, Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 2:20-cv-00893-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2022).
8. Id. at 11 n.10.
9. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 2:20-cv-00893-FMO-KS, 2022 WL 22855520, at *7, *9-*10 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2022), amending and superseding 604 F. Supp. 3d 913 (C.D. Cal. 2022). On Aug. 4, 2022, the district court further clarified the class definition. Order Re: Motion to Refine Class Definition, supra note 7
10. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 22-55873, 2024 WL 489288, at *2 n.1 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2024).
11. Transcript of Oral Argument at 114, Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 24-304 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2025).
12. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 24-304, slip op. at 1 (U.S. June 5, 2025) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).
13. Id. at 5.
14. Id. at 5-6.
15. Order Re: Motion to Refine Class Definition, supra note 7, at 10 (quoting Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31 F.4th 651, 669 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc)).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
