Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Dba Labcorp v. Davis et al.
No. 24-304 · Decided June 5, 2025
Whether a federal court may certify a damages class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when the class includes both injured and uninjured class members. The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, thereby declining to rule on whether a Rule 23 damages class may include both injured and uninjured members.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT · Argued April 29, 2025
Parties — Petitioner: LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, dba LABCORP · Respondent: DAVIS et al.
Vote & lineupPer Curiam
Who prevailed — The respondent prevailed because the dismissal of the petition left the Ninth Circuit's approval of the class certification intact.
The question

Whether a federal court may certify a damages class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when the class includes both injured and uninjured class members. This question arose from a dispute regarding the accessibility of self-service kiosks for blind patients at LabCorp facilities. The Court had to determine if such a mixed class satisfies the requirements for certification under federal law.

Petitioner's argument
  • The proposed class definition was overbroad because it swept in many uninjured members, including blind patients who would not use kiosks regardless of accessibility due to personal preference.
  • Certifying an overbroad class creates "potentially ruinous liability" that can coerce businesses into costly settlements.
  • These coerced settlements increase the cost of doing business, which are then passed on to consumers, retirees, and workers.
  • The Ninth Circuit erred by applying a standard that permits certification even when a class "potentially includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members."
Respondent's argument
  • The case is moot because the petitioner appealed the May 2022 certification order rather than the August 2022 order that clarified and refined the class definition.
  • Under Ninth Circuit precedent, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permits the certification of a class even if it "potentially includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members."
  • The District Court's clarification in August 2022 did not materially alter the composition of the class or change the original May certification order.
  • Not stated.
The decision
  • The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted (DIG).
  • Because the case was dismissed as DIG, the Court provided no substantive legal reasoning for its action.
  • The Court did not resolve the threshold question regarding whether the proceedings were moot.
  • The Court declined to decide the merits of the class-action question presented.
  • No specific legal test was applied by the majority.
  • No statutes or case law authorities were invoked to justify a substantive holding.
  • The decision leaves the Ninth Circuit's judgment in place without establishing a Supreme Court precedent on the issue.
Separate opinions
KAVANAUGH, dissenting, joined by nobody
  • Argues that the case is not moot and that federal courts may not certify a damages class under Rule 23 if it includes both injured and uninjured members because common questions of law and fact would not predominate.
  • Relies on *Comcast Corp. v. Behrend*, *Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes*, *Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor*, and *General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon* to support the requirement that class members must share a common injury.
  • Rejects the Ninth Circuit's reliance on *Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC* regarding the inclusion of uninjured members.
Read the full opinion on supremecourt.gov (PDF) →