Life Sciences Horizons Brochure 2025 - Flipbook - Page 61
60
2025 Horizons Life Sciences and Health Care
U.S. Supreme Court to address class certification and Article III standing
In January 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to
answer a hotly-contested question in class action
litigation, which will have substantial impact
throughout the life sciences U.S. litigation space:
“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 answer to that question has
been the subject of intense litigation, especially in
consumer and other class actions affecting
pharmaceutical and other life sciences companies,
and there is currently a three-way circuit split over
the issue. The Supreme Court’s decision will thus
significantly impact cases where, for one reason or
another, there is reason to believe that some members
of the proposed class are not injured within the
meaning of Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
The case at issue is called Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings, dba Labcorp v. Luke Davis, et al., Case No. 22-55873.
Plaintiffs are visually impaired individuals who claim they were
denied equal access to touchscreen check-in kiosks at Labcorp
facilities. Plaintiffs brought claims – individually and on behalf of
a class of thousands of other allegedly similarly situated visually
impaired individuals – against Labcorp. Plaintiffs moved to certify
a damages class that included legally blind individuals in
California who could not use Labcorp’s kiosks.
In opposing class certification, Labcorp argued that Plaintiffs
could not show standing for each class member under Article III,
because they could not demonstrate that each class member
personally encountered – and were unable to use or discouraged
from using – Labcorp’s kiosks. The District Court nevertheless
certified the damages class.
An appeals court affirmed class certification, ruling that it did not
matter “that some potential class members may not have been
injured” because, under the law of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, the rules do not bar “certification of a class that potentially
includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured class
members.” Davis v. Lab’y Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 22-55873,
2024 WL 489288, at *2 n.1 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2024).
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is but one of many decisions in recent
years taking different approaches to evaluating whether a class
may be certified when some of the proposed class members have
not suffered an Article III injury. And this issue frequently arises
in large life science, health care, and pharmaceutical cases. A
decision is expected from the U.S. Supreme Court by the end of
June 2025.
Adam K. Levin
Partner
Washington, D.C.
Katie Wellington
Partner
Boston
James Yates
Senior Associate
Washington, D.C.
