Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf
Page Number: 13

10 

COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI 

Opinion of the Court 

244 (1980) (“Mere litigation expense, even substantial and 
unrecoupable  cost,  does  not  constitute  irreparable  injury”
(internal quotation marks omitted)); App. to Pet. for Cert.
43a (District Court in Bielski stating that “[m]ere litigation 
expenses do not generally constitute irreparable injury” for
In  any  event,  the 
purposes  of  stay  pending  appeal). 
background  Griggs  rule  applies  regardless  of  how  often
courts  might  otherwise  grant  stays  under  the  ordinary 
discretionary stay factors. 

Fifth,  Bielski  relies  on  this  Court’s  statement  that 
questions of arbitrability are “severable from the merits of 
the  underlying  disputes.”  Moses  H.  Cone  Memorial 
Hospital  v.  Mercury  Constr.  Corp.,  460  U. S.  1,  21  (1983). 
But  the  sole  issue  here  is  whether  the  district  court’s 
authority to consider a case is “involved in the appeal” when 
an  appellate  court  considers  the  threshold  question  of 
arbitrability.  Griggs, 459 U. S., at 58.  The answer is yes,
and Moses H. Cone says nothing to the contrary. 

* 

* 

* 

We  conclude  that,  after  Coinbase  appealed  from  the 
denial of its motion to compel arbitration, the District Court
was  required  to  stay  its  proceedings.  On  remand,  we 
anticipate that the Ninth Circuit here, as we anticipate in
§16(a)  appeals  more  generally,  will  proceed  with 
appropriate  expedition  when  considering  Coinbase’s 
interlocutory appeal from the denial of the motion to compel 
arbitration.  We  reverse  the  judgment  of  the  Court  of
Appeals  and  remand  the  case  for  further  proceedings 
consistent with this opinion.7 

It is so ordered. 

—————— 

7 The Court’s judgment today pertains to respondent Abraham Bielski.
The writ of certiorari as to respondents David Suski et al. is dismissed 
as improvidently granted.