On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving unresolved a significant question regarding class-action certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The question presented (and left unanswered by the majority) in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) v. Davis was whether a federal court may certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured class members. The dismissal has sparked considerable debate, particularly highlighted by Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent, which provides a compelling argument against the court’s dismissal.

The case arose from Labcorp’s introduction of self-service kiosks for patient check-ins, which allegedly violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act due to accessibility issues for blind and visually impaired patients. Despite Labcorp’s efforts to accommodate these patients through enhanced front-desk services, the plaintiffs sought to certify a class with potential damages reaching up to $500 million annually. The class 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.” The district court initially certified this class in May 2022, prompting Labcorp to seek an interlocutory appeal, arguing that the class definition was overly broad and would sweep in many uninjured members, including blind patients who would not use kiosks anyway because they dislike kiosks or prefer to speak with a front-desk employee when checking in for appointments.

In August 2022, while Labcorp’s petition for interlocutory appeal was still pending, the district court clarified plaintiffs’ class definition to include “[a]ll legally blind individuals who . . . , due to their disability, were unable to use” Labcorp kiosks in California. Notably, 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.

In September 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the interlocutory appeal and ultimately approved the May 2022 class certification reasoning that Rule 23 permits certification of a class even when the class “‘potentially includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members.'” Labcorp filed a petition for certiorari.

Instead of resolving the merits question, the Supreme Court dismissed this case as improvidently granted … not holding that the case was moot because of the August clarification. Rather, the court declined to decide either the threshold mootness question or the class-action question.

Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent criticizes the court’s decision to dismiss the case without addressing the mootness argument raised by the plaintiffs. He contends that the case is not moot because the district court’s August 2022 order only clarified but did “not materially alter the composition of the [May] class.” Justice Kavanaugh argues that Rule 23 requires common questions to predominate in damages class actions, which is not possible when a class includes both injured and uninjured members. He emphasizes that the Ninth Circuit’s approval of such a class contradicts Rule 23 and Supreme Court precedents, potentially leading to significant real-world consequences. “Classes that are overinflated with uninjured members raise the stakes for businesses that are the targets of class actions. Overbroad and incorrectly certified classes threaten massive liability — here, with potential damages up to about $500 million per year. That reality in turn can coerce businesses into costly settlements that they sometimes must reluctantly swallow rather than betting the company on the uncertainties of trial … And companies in turn pass on those costs to consumers in the form of higher prices; to retirement account holders in the form of lower returns; and to workers in the form of lower salaries and lesser benefits.”

Justice Kavanaugh concludes his dissent by stating that he would reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and hold that federal courts may not certify a damages class pursuant to Rule 23 when the class includes both injured and uninjured class members.