Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

COINBASE, INC. v. BIELSKI 

Opinion of the Court 

is  precisely  what  the  court  of  appeals  must  decide.” 
Bradford-Scott Data Corp. v. Physician Computer Network, 
Inc., 128 F. 3d 504, 506 (CA7 1997).  Stated otherwise, the 
question  of  whether  “the  case  should  be  litigated  in  the 
district  court  . . .  is  the  mirror  image  of  the  question 
presented  on  appeal.”  Id.,  at  505.    Here,  as elsewhere, it 
“makes no sense for trial to go forward while the court of
appeals cogitates on whether there should be one.”  Apostol 
v.  Gallion,  870  F. 2d  1335,  1338  (CA7  1989).    In  short, 
Griggs  dictates  that  the  district  court  must  stay  its
proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on arbitrability
is ongoing.2 

Most  courts  of  appeals  to  address  the  question  in  the
§16(a)  context  have  reached  that  same  conclusion.  E.g., 
Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 F. 3d 1249, 1253 
(CA11  2004)  (“[I]t  makes  little  sense  for  the  litigation  to 
continue in the district court while the appeal is pending”).3 
Leading treatises agree that a district court should stay its 
proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on arbitrability
is ongoing.  For example, Moore’s treatise states that a “stay 
in these circumstances” is “the sounder approach” and “is 
consistent with the general [Griggs] principle that a district
court should not exercise jurisdiction over those aspects of 
the case that are involved in the appeal.”  19 J. Moore, D. 

—————— 

2 Coinbase  concedes  that  the  district  court  may  still  proceed  with 
matters that are not involved in the appeal, such as the awarding of costs
and attorney’s fees.  Brief for Petitioner 21; see also 16A C. Wright, A. 
Miller, E. Cooper, & C. Struve, Federal Practice and Procedure §3949.1,
pp. 68–69 (5th ed. 2019). 

3 See also Levin v. Alms & Assoc., Inc., 634 F. 3d 260, 266 (CA4 2011); 
Ehleiter v. Grapetree Shores, Inc., 482 F. 3d 207, 215, n. 6 (CA3 2007); 
McCauley v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 413 F. 3d 1158, 1162–1163 
(CA10  2005);  Bombardier  Corp.  v.  National  R.  Passenger  Corporation, 
333 F. 3d 250, 252 (CADC 2003); Bradford-Scott Data Corp. v. Physician 
Computer Network, Inc., 128 F. 3d 504, 505–507 (CA7 1997); but see, e.g., 
Weingarten  Realty  Investors  v.  Miller,  661  F.  3d  904,  907–910  (CA5 
2011).