Originally from Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation

PAGE PREVIEW

The question presented in the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. __, 2023 WL 4138983 (2023) (available at https://bit.ly/3D4eDLw), evokes one of the most famous lines in all of punk rock: “Should I stay or should I go now?” The Clash, “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” Combat Rock (Epic 1982).

The case considers the very technical question of the status of district court litigation when a party has the statutory right under the Federal Arbitration Act—the FAA—for an immediate appeal to a federal court of appeals.

The Coinbase decision requires that underlying litigation be stayed while a litigant appeals an unsuccessful motion to compel under FAA Section 16. 9 U.S.C. §16(a) (The FAA is available in full at https://bit.ly/43h4buX). Despite the narrow technical issue involved in the case, the biting dissent and the banter between the majority and dissenting opinions lead to questions as to whether more is at stake than simply a stay—or whether the case’s posture as a class action is motivating the justices.