Supreme Court Dismisses Cert Petition On Uninjured Class Members As Improvidently Granted

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed on procedural grounds the petition for writ of certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, dba Labcorp, v. Luke Davis, et al., No. 22-55873. The Supreme Court had granted the petition on the following question: “[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.” Justice Kavanaugh, writing in dissent, said he would have reached the merits and ruled that federal courts may not certify a damages class that includes uninjured members.

Background

Labcorp is a clinical diagnostic laboratory that tests samples collected from patients at its patient service centers. In January 2020, a putative class of legally blind plaintiffs sued Labcorp, alleging that it had discriminated against them under various state and federal statutes because they could not use Labcorp’s express check-in kiosks at its patient service centers.

When seeking class certification, plaintiffs’ proposed class definitions included patients who, according to Labcorp, never tried to, or never wanted to, use the express check-in kiosks. The district court certified the classes regardless, concluding (among other things) that at least under Rule 23, whether class members suffered an injury does not bar certification.^[1]  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed, ruling that the inclusion of potentially uninjured unnamed class members did not preclude class certification.^[2]

At argument, class counsel asserted 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because its notice of appeal had challenged the class definitions in the district court’s May order, which were later superseded in an August order.

The Petition’s Dismissal

The petition’s dismissal comes a little over a month after the Court heard oral argument. At argument, some justices had focused on whether the case was moot rather than its merits.

The Court, per curiam, ultimately dismissed the petition as improvidently granted in a one-line ruling, without explanation.

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.” He explained that Rule 23 requires common questions to predominate, which cannot occur if uninjured members are included in the class. For this point, Justice Kavanaugh quoted the district court’s reasoning: “‘[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.’” And he cautioned that classes “overinflated with uninjured members” “threaten massive liability”, which “coerce” businesses into settlement rather than risk proceeding to trial.

Takeaways for Clients

At least for now, the federal circuits remain split on the inclusion of uninjured class members in Rule 23 damages classes.

If you have any questions regarding this alert or class actions in general, Crowell’s deep bench of class action defense attorneys are available to discuss and assist.