Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–105 
_________________ 

COINBASE, INC., PETITIONER v. ABRAHAM BIELSKI 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 23, 2023] 

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court. 
When a federal district court denies a motion to compel
arbitration,  the  losing  party  has  a  statutory  right  to  an
interlocutory  appeal.    See  9  U. S. C.  §16(a).    The  sole 
question  here  is  whether  the  district  court  must  stay  its
pre-trial  and  trial  proceedings  while  the  interlocutory
appeal  is  ongoing.    The  answer  is  yes:    The  district  court 
must stay its proceedings. 

I 
Coinbase operates an online platform on which users can
buy  and  sell  cryptocurrencies  and  government-issued 
currencies.  When creating a Coinbase account, individuals
agree  to  the  terms  in  Coinbase’s  User  Agreement.    As 
relevant here, the User Agreement contains an arbitration
provision,  which  directs  that  disputes  arising  under  the 
agreement be resolved through binding arbitration. 

This  case  concerns  a  putative  class  action  filed  against 
Coinbase  in  the  U. S.  District  Court  for  the  Northern 
District of  California.  Abraham  Bielski sued on behalf of 
Coinbase users who allege that Coinbase failed to replace
funds fraudulently taken from the users’ accounts.

The  District  Court  denied  Coinbase’s  motion  to  compel