Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

COINBASE, INC.  v. BIELSKI 

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

No. 22–105.  Argued March 21, 2023—Decided June 23, 2023 

Abraham Bielski filed a putative class action on behalf of Coinbase users
alleging that Coinbase, an online currency platform, failed to replace
funds fraudulently taken from the users’ accounts.  Because Coinbase’s 
User Agreement provides for dispute resolution through binding arbi-
tration,  Coinbase  filed  a  motion  to  compel  arbitration.    The  District 
Court denied the motion.  Coinbase then filed an interlocutory appeal
to  the  Ninth  Circuit  under  the  Federal  Arbitration  Act,  9  U. S. C. 
§16(a), which authorizes an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a
motion to compel arbitration.  Coinbase also moved the District Court 
to stay its proceedings pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal. 
The District Court denied Coinbase’s stay motion, and the Ninth Cir-
cuit likewise declined to stay the District Court’s proceedings pending 
appeal. 

Held: A  district  court  must  stay  its  proceedings  while  an  interlocutory 

appeal on the question of arbitrability is ongoing.  Pp. 2–10.

(a) Section  16(a)  does  not  say  whether  district  court  proceedings 
must  be  stayed  pending  resolution  of  an  interlocutory  appeal.    But 
Congress enacted the provision against a clear background principle 
prescribed by this Court’s precedents:  An appeal, including an inter-
locutory appeal, “divests the district court of its control over those as-
pects of the case involved in the appeal.”  Griggs v. Provident Consumer 
Discount Co., 459 U. S. 56, 58.  The Griggs principle resolves this case.
Because the question on appeal is whether the case belongs in arbitra-
tion or instead in the district court, the entire case is essentially “in-
volved in the appeal,” id., at 58, and Griggs dictates that the district 
court stay its proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on arbitrabil-
ity is ongoing.  Most courts of appeals to address this question, as well
as leading treatises, agree with that conclusion.