Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski
599 U.S. 736 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a district court denies a motion to compel arbitration, the court must stay its proceedings pending the resolution of an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability.
Facts:
- Coinbase operates an online platform for buying and selling cryptocurrencies.
- To create an account, users like Abraham Bielski must agree to Coinbase's User Agreement.
- The User Agreement includes a provision requiring that disputes arising under the agreement be resolved through binding arbitration.
- Abraham Bielski alleged that Coinbase failed to replace funds that were fraudulently taken from the accounts of its users.
Procedural Posture:
- Abraham Bielski filed a putative class action against Coinbase in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Coinbase filed a motion to compel arbitration, citing its User Agreement.
- The District Court denied Coinbase's motion to compel arbitration.
- Coinbase, as the appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a).
- Coinbase moved the District Court to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.
- The District Court denied the motion for a stay.
- The Ninth Circuit also declined to stay the District Court's proceedings pending the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Federal Arbitration Act, which authorizes an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, require a district court to stay its pre-trial and trial proceedings pending the resolution of that appeal?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kavanaugh
Yes, a district court must stay its proceedings. This conclusion stems from the established principle that an appeal 'divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal,' as stated in Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. Because the question on appeal is the threshold issue of arbitrability—whether the case belongs in court at all—the entire case is 'involved in the appeal.' Allowing district court proceedings to continue would undermine the recognized benefits of arbitration, such as efficiency and lower costs, even if an appellate court later determines the case should have been in arbitration from the start. This potential for wasted judicial resources and coercion on the appealing party supports a mandatory stay, which aligns with congressional practice of explicitly creating 'non-stay' provisions when it intends to depart from this background rule.
Dissenting - Justice Jackson
No, a mandatory stay is not required. The majority's rule 'comes out of nowhere,' as it is not found in the text of the Federal Arbitration Act (§ 16), which is silent on the matter of stays. Standard principles of statutory interpretation suggest the omission was intentional, as Congress has explicitly mandated stays in other parts of the FAA and in related statutes. The traditional default rule for interlocutory appeals is a discretionary, case-by-case stay analysis by the district court, not a mandatory one. The majority misapplies Griggs, which only prevents a district court from modifying the specific order on appeal (the arbitrability decision), not from proceeding with the severable merits of the case. This new, judicially-created rule unfairly advantages defendants seeking arbitration by allowing them to unilaterally pause litigation, thereby imposing significant delay and financial pressure on plaintiffs.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split by establishing a clear, mandatory rule that district court proceedings must be stayed during an interlocutory appeal of a denied motion to compel arbitration. By grounding its reasoning in the Griggs principle, the Court strengthens the power of arbitration agreements, ensuring that parties who bargain for arbitration do not lose its core benefits (like avoiding costly discovery and trial) while the threshold issue of arbitrability is being appealed. The ruling may influence how courts view stays in other contexts where an appeal challenges the very authority of the court to hear a case, such as qualified immunity. However, the dissent raises significant concerns that this creates a special, pro-arbitration procedural rule not authorized by Congress, which could be used tactically by defendants to delay valid claims.
Unlock the full brief for Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski