Attention arbitration lawyers: the U.S. Supreme Court today issued its decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, holding that a party who unsuccessfully seeks in federal court to compel arbitration will, by filing an interlocutory appeal, bring the court proceedings to a standstill pending the resolution of the appeal. The closely watched case will bring clarity to an issue that has divided appellate courts, and frustration to litigants whose eagerness to proceed will suffer delay by satellite litigation regarding arbitrability.
Apart from the holding, and more entertaining to a parent who reared young children in the 1990s, I particularly enjoyed this nugget from the dissent filed by Justice Jackson, as she cited one of my kids’ favorite reads: “In categorically resolving these conflicts in favor of the pro-arbitration party, the majority’s analysis comes down to this: Because the pro-arbitration party gets an interlocutory appeal, it should also get an automatic stay. Ibid.; see L. Numeroff, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie (1985).”
For those unfortunately not blessed by the umpteen recitations to young children, it starts like this: “If a hungry little mouse shows up on your doorstep, you might want to give him a cookie. And if you give him a cookie, he’ll ask for a glass of milk. He’ll want to look in a mirror to make sure he doesn’t have a milk mustache, and then he’ll ask for a pair of scissors to give himself a trim…”
positivelyneutral.com 