For now, the court just has to resolve the question posed in Coinbase's petition : "Does a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration strip a federal court of jurisdiction to pursue litigation pending appeal, or does the federal court retain discretion to proceed with litigation while the appeal is pending?" Nine federal courts have already ruled on this issue — and contradicted themselves: three courts (from the 2nd, 5th and 9th Regions) ruled that a federal court can continue with the litigation, wh Vietnam WhatsApp Number ile the arbitration appeal is still pending; six courts (from the 3rd, 4th, 7th Districts, and the District of Columbia) have ruled that federal court jurisdiction cannot pursue litigation while the appeal is pending. Thus, the Supreme Court had to intervene to answer this question, which seems confusing due to its legal style. But all Coinbase wants to know is whether it can proceed with arbitration to resolve the dispute while the case is still working its way through the appeals court, according to Ballotpedia , CNBC and the Hasting Tribune .
However, his request was denied in the first instance. The California federal court recognized that the terms of the user agreement contain a delegation clause [to an arbitrator] and that, "when the delegation provision exists, courts must primarily focus on the enforcement of that particular provision, not the enforcement of the arbitration agreement as a whole.” However, the court found that, "because the delegation clause refers to disputes arising outside the Arbitration Agreement, the delegation clause incorporated the broader arbitration agreement and therefore its enforcement depends on going back through the provisions covered in the comprehensive arbitration agreement and to assess whether the arbitration agreement itself is valid.” The conclusion is simpler: the federal court ruled that the arbitration agreement was abusive under California law.