Supreme Court Dismisses Cert Petition On Uninjured Class Members As Improvidently Granted
What You Need to Know
Key takeaway #1
The Court avoided answering the question posed in the certiorari petition, leaving the federal circuit split on the inclusion of uninjured class members in Rule 23 damages classes
Key takeaway #2
Justice Kavanaugh wrote a dissent explaining that he would have reached the merits and ruled that federal courts may not certify a damages class that includes uninjured members.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
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because its notice of appeal had challenged the class definitions in the district court’s May order, which were later superseded in an August order.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.
[1] Davis v. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. CV 20-0893 FMO (KSX), 2022 WL 22855520, at *7, *9-*10 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2022), amending and superseding Davis v. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, 604 F. Supp. 3d 913 (C.D. Cal. 2022). On August 4, 2022, on motion from the class, the district court further refined the class definition. Or. Re: Mot. to Refine Class Definition, ECF No. 114, No. CV 20-0893 FMO (KSX) (Aug. 4, 2022).
[2] Davis v. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 22-55873, 2024 WL 489288, at *2 n.1 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2024).
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.06.25
Litigation Funding Reforms: Clarity for UK Funders and Litigants Post-PACCAR
On 2 June 2025 the Civil Justice Council (a UK public body that advises on civil justice and civil procedure) (“CJC”) issued its Review of Litigation Funding Final Report (the “Report”). The CJC has provided comprehensive recommendations on the regulation and reform of litigation funding in England and Wales. The highlight recommendation of the Report is for the UK Government to remove third party litigation funding from the regulations and requirements of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court in PACCAR.[1] Meanwhile, the UK Court of Appeal has recently endorsed a position that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) may order that third party funders of collective proceedings be paid first from litigation proceeds before claimants according to waterfall provisions in their funding agreements.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
USPTO Director Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioners Relying on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.05.25