An upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision will determine whether lawsuit proceedings must stop when a party appeals a motion denying arbitration.
The case, Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, originated in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Supreme Court ruling will clarify questions left open because of split rulings at the federal appellate level, said Ashley Hoffman, a labor and employment policy advocate with the California Chamber of Commerce.
“It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to weigh in when there is a circuit split,” Hoffman said.
Nor is it uncommon for the Supreme Court to weigh in on cases involving arbitration because of the extent of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), she added.
“The issue is what happens when you appeal a motion to compel arbitration that’s been denied – does that automatically stay the court case from going forward?” Hoffman said.
In many ways, Hoffman noted, Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski centers on issues of proper judicial procedure.
“I would look at it from the point of view of procedurally what should happen,” Hoffman said. “Because are you causing the company irreparable harm if you force them to litigate a case that they are saying should be arbitrated?”
The Supreme Court granted review of the case in December, and a ruling would likely be issued this year.
“The question of arbitration continues to come up,” Hoffman said. “People often have very strong feelings one way or another about it. And with all the litigation surrounding arbitration, it makes me wonder, if they rule one way or the other, does that influence a state or Congress in trying to act? But then, they might be hamstrung by the FAA.”
The case docket includes a number of party filings and amicus briefs; oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.
“This idea of arbitration is a very highly contested issue, and it is something that – as we see – every angle of it continues to be litigated,” Hoffman said.