On January 24, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis to address a long-unsettled issue central to class-action litigation: “Whether 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.”

The case arises out of the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiffs—two legally blind patients and the American Council for the Blind—filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that LabCorp’s self-service check-in kiosks violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because they were not accessible to the blind without assistance. Among a bevy of claims, the plaintiffs sought relief under California’s “Unruh Act,” which the plaintiffs contend imposes a minimum of $4,000 in state law statutory damages for every violation of the ADA. Since the plaintiffs’ proposed damages class consisted of all legally blind individuals who visited a LabCorp in California and could not use the self-service kiosk due to their disability, LabCorp estimated its potential exposure at approximately half a billion dollars per year if the class was certified.

Opposing class certification, LabCorp argued that class treatment was improper, including because a significant share of the class did not have Article III standing to bring their claims. In particular, LabCorp noted that the class included potentially substantial numbers of individuals who visited a LabCorp but never intended (or wanted) to use the self-service kiosks to check in. The district court did not address this standing issue when certifying the class; and on appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed certification in an unpublished order relying on circuit precedent indicating that the presence of “more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members” did not defeat class certification.

The extent to which a certified class can contain uninjured class members has deeply divided courts. In TransUnion v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court held that a federal court could not grant relief to uninjured class members. 594 U.S. 413, 431 (2021). But lower courts have reached different conclusions as to whether and when a class can be certified if it contains uninjured class members. The LabCorp cert. petition argued that a three-way circuit split on this question exists. According to the petition, the Second and Eighth Circuits did not permit certification under Article III if the class contained uninjured members; the D.C. and First Circuits did not permit certification under Rule 23(b)(3) if the class contained more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members; and the Ninth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits did permit certification under Rule 23(b)(3) unless a significant portion of the class is uninjured, subject to the case otherwise meeting predominance, superiority, and other requirements for class certification.

Whatever position the Supreme Court takes could have a significant impact on class action litigation in federal court. Whether a class contains uninjured class members is a frequently litigated issue.

The Court has not yet set a date for argument, but merits briefing is set to be complete in April 2025, and we expect a decision will be issued by the end of the Court’s term in June. We will continue to monitor the proceedings and will provide updates on Inside Class Actions.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jonah Panikar Jonah Panikar

Jonah Panikar is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office, where he represents a variety of clients in their most complex, high-stakes litigation matters. He regularly defends clients in highly regulated industries against class action and mass tort claims.

Jonah maintains a…

Jonah Panikar is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office, where he represents a variety of clients in their most complex, high-stakes litigation matters. He regularly defends clients in highly regulated industries against class action and mass tort claims.

Jonah maintains a robust pro bono practice focused on criminal justice. He defends indigent clients against serious felony charges at trial. He also helps incarcerated clients obtain financial compensation for civil rights abuses suffered in prison.

Photo of Andrew Soukup Andrew Soukup

Andrew Soukup is a co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group. Andrew specializes in representing heavily regulated businesses in class actions, multidistrict litigation, and other high-stakes disputes.

Praised for achieving “big wins in his class action practice,” Andrew has

Andrew Soukup is a co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group. Andrew specializes in representing heavily regulated businesses in class actions, multidistrict litigation, and other high-stakes disputes.

Praised for achieving “big wins in his class action practice,” Andrew has defeated a variety of advertising, consumer protection, privacy, and product defect and safety claims ranging in exposure from millions to billions of dollars. Based on his “proven record,” Andrew has been recognized as an “attorney you want on your side in a bet-the-company case.”

Andrew’s clients include those in the consumer products, life sciences, financial services, technology, automotive, and media and communications industries. He has helped his clients prevail in litigation in federal and state courts across the country against putative class representatives, government agencies, state attorneys general, and commercial entities.

With a long history of representing companies subject to extensive federal regulation and oversight, Andrew provides a unique ability to help courts understand the complex environment that governs clients’ businesses. Clients turn to Andrew because of his successful outcomes at all stages of litigation, his responsiveness and attention to their matters, his understanding of their businesses, and his creative strategies.

Andrew’s recent successes include:

  • Leading the successful defense of several of the world’s leading companies and brands from claims that they engaged in deceptive marketing or sold defective products, including claims brought under state consumer protection and unfair deceptive acts or practices statutes.
  • Defeating claims against one of the nation’s leading consumer products companies in industry-wide, multidistrict class-action litigation challenging the company’s marketing and advertising of over-the-counter medicine containing allegedly ineffective ingredients, which earned Andrew recognition by American Lawyer as a “Litigator of the Week.”
  • Delivering wins in multiple nationwide class actions on behalf of leading financial institutions related to fees, disclosures, and other banking practices, including the successful defense of numerous financial institutions accused of violating the Paycheck Protection Program’s implementing laws, which contributed to Covington’s recognition as a “Class Action Group of the Year.”
  • Helping several of the world’s largest seafood companies defeat ESG-related claims accusing them of misrepresenting their practices.

Andrew has also obtained favorable outcomes for numerous clients in commercial and indemnification disputes raising contract, fraud, and other business tort claims. He helps companies navigate contractual and indemnification disputes with their business partners. And he advises companies on their arbitration agreements, and has helped numerous clients avoid multi-district and class-action litigation by successfully enforcing their arbitration agreements.

Watch: Andrew provides insights on class action litigation, as part of our Navigating Class Actions video series.