Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf
Page Number: 11

8 

COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI 

Opinion of the Court 

arbitration cases.  Cf. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White 
Sales, Inc., 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 8).  Nor does 
Bielski  argue  that  Coinbase’s  appeal  in  this  case  is 
frivolous.  Importantly,  moreover,  the  courts  of  appeals 
possess  robust  tools  to  prevent  unwarranted  delay  and 
deter frivolous interlocutory appeals.  For example, a party
can  ask  the  court  of  appeals  to  summarily  affirm,  to 
expedite  an  interlocutory  appeal,  or  to  dismiss  the
interlocutory appeal as frivolous.  In addition, nearly every
circuit  has  developed  a  process  by  which  a  district  court 
itself may certify that an interlocutory appeal is frivolous. 
Brief  for  Petitioner  51;  see  also  Arthur  Andersen  LLP  v. 
Carlisle,  556  U. S.  624,  629  (2009)  (“Appellate  courts  can
streamline  the  disposition  of  meritless  claims  and  even 
authorize the district court’s retention of ” a case “when an 
appeal is certified as frivolous”).  Finally, a court of appeals
may impose sanctions where appropriate; the possibility of 
sanctions also helps deter frivolous appeals.  See Fed. Rule 
App. Proc. 38; Arthur Andersen, 556 U. S., at 629. 

Second, Bielski contrasts §16(a) with two other statutory 
provisions that contain an explicit stay requirement—§3 of 
the  Federal  Arbitration  Act  and  §1292(d)(4)  of  Title  28.
Bielski  suggests  that  Congress  would  not  have  included 
those  explicit  stay  requirements  in  §3  and  §1292(d)(4) 
unless  Congress  thought  that  an  interlocutory  appeal  did 
not  ordinarily  stay  district  court  proceedings.  Bielski  is 
wrong.

Section  3  of  the  Act  provides  for  a  stay  of  court
proceedings  pending  arbitration,  not  pending  an  appeal. 
That  situation  does  not  fall  within  the  Griggs  rule.  No 
background  principle  requires  automatic  stays  of  district 
In  order  to 
court  proceedings  pending  arbitration. 
automatically stay court proceedings pending arbitration in
those cases, Congress therefore affirmatively codified a stay 
requirement.

As  to  §1292(d)(4):    When  Congress  added  §1292(d)(4)’s