The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in a case that could change the way states such as California handle disputes when the enforceability of an arbitration agreement has been contested. In Coinbase v. Bielski, and the related case of Coinbase v. Suki, the justices have indicated an interest in resolving an intercircuit conflict on the following question: Does a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration override a district court’s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal?

When Abraham Belski lost more than $30,000 to a scammer who accessed his account with Coinbase, an online currency and crypto-currency exchange platform, he immediately contacted the company to seek help. Belski initiated a “live chat” with a non-human representative, called the customer service hotline, and ultimately wrote and mailed letters to the company. But he never had the chance to speak with a live person. In fact, he got no response from Coinbase.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]