Key Takeaways
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split over whether a damages class may be certified if it includes uninjured plaintiffs. This decision is expected to provide clarity on class actions, potentially reshaping the landscape of class action litigation.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Laboratory Corp. v. Davis, No. 22-55873 (9th Cir. 2024) to resolve the circuit split over whether a damages class action may be certified that contains plaintiffs who lack standing because they are uninjured. A ruling may issue before the Court’s July recess.
This issue has divided federal appellate courts. For example, the Second and Eighth Circuits take the strict view that a class may not be certified if it contains members who lack Article III standing. Johannessohn v. Polaris Indus. Inc., 9 F.4th 981 (8th Cir. 2021); Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006). The Third Circuit allows certification so long as at least one named plaintiff has standing. Neale v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, 794 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2015). And the D.C. Circuit declined to certify a class where a significant number of plaintiffs could not show injury. In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 934 F.3d 619, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
This is not the first time the Supreme Court set out to resolve this split. The Court previously granted certiorari on this issue in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016). But in deciding that case, the Court did not reach the issue because the petitioner conceded that certifying a class with uninjured plaintiffs might be proper if there was a way to remove those plaintiffs after certification. The Supreme Court’s repeated attempt to resolve this question underscores its importance in federal class action practice.
In Laboratory Corp. v. Davis, the Ninth Circuit certified a damages class of blind LabCorp customers who were unable to use a self-check-in kiosk. The class included some members who did not know of, or did not want to use, the kiosk, and were thus uninjured by it. The Ninth Circuit’s decision was unpublished and short, and in briefing on certiorari, the proponents of the class raised a variety of waiver and procedural obstacles to further appellate review. The Supreme Court granted review only after relisting the case three times for conference.
A decision in Laboratory Corp v. Davis is expected to resolve this recurring and important issue.
Contributors
*The Re:Torts team would like to thank Erin Elliott for her contribution to this article.
