UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

3Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736

Bielski filed a class action against Coinbase. Coinbase’s motion to compel arbitration was denied and it appealed, pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Coinbase’s motion to stay the litigation was denied by the District Court and this ruling was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.

Coinbase appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed. Section 16(a) does not say whether the district court proceedings must be stayed. But Congress enacted §16(a) against a clear background principle prescribed by this Court’s precedents: An appeal, including an interlocutory appeal, “divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U. S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 74 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1982). The Griggs principle reflected a longstanding tenet of American procedure and resolved the case. Because the question on appeal was whether the case belonged in arbitration or instead in the district court, the entire case was essentially “involved in the appeal.” Whether the litigation may go forward in the district court is precisely what the court of appeals had to decide. It made no sense for trial to go forward while the court of appeals cogitated on whether there should be one.