Judge Eric D. Miller Agrees Majority's Analysis, But Disagrees That The Ninth Circuit Rule Is Any Different From The Rule In Other Circuits.
Abraham Bielski has already made law in his case against Coinbase, Inc., a cryptocurrency exchange. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court held in Bielski's case that a district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is ongoing. See our 7/03/23 post about the SCOTUS decision in Bielski v. Coinbase, Inc. In the newest iteration of Bielski v. Coinbase, Inc., 22-15566 (9th Cir. 12/5/23) (Mendoza (maj.), Sanchez, Miller (partially concurring)), the Ninth Circuit examined whether a delegation clause in Bielski's contract with Coinbase, Inc. effectively delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Bielski continues to make law, though not necessarily in his favor.
In deciding the delegation issue, the Ninth Circuit decided three issues, two of which Judge Mendoza described as issues of first impression.
The first issue of first impression is how much must a party challenging a delegation clause do to successfully allege a challenge? The answer is that specifically mentioning the delegation clause and presenting arguments against its enforceability is sufficient. Judge Mendoza suggests, however, that some other circuits require more substance in the challenge than does the Ninth Circuit.
The second issue of first impression is how should the court conduct its analysis? Should it just look at the delegation clause, or should it be able to interpret that provision in the context of the agreement as a whole? The answer here is that "the district court correctly considered the whole context surrounding the delegation provision in its analysis of the provision’s validity."
The third issue is whether the delegation clause was unconscionable -- not an issue of first impression. The court found that it was not unconscionable, and therefore reversed the district court’s order denying Coinbase’s motion to compel arbitration.
COMMENT: Judge Miller partially concurred in the opinion. He agreed with the court’s holding that “'to sufficiently challenge a delegation provision, the party resisting arbitration must specifically reference the delegation provision and make arguments challenging it' and that 'a party may use the same arguments to challenge both the delegation provision and the arbitration agreement, so long as the party articulates why the argument invalidates each specific provision.' I do not join it, however, because I do not agree with the court’s characterization of the rule applied in other courts of appeals." In other words, he doesn't believe there is any real difference between the Ninth Circuit test and how other circuits address delegation.
Based on the Ninth Circuit majority opinion, there would appear to be a split among the circuits, and thus a firm basis for Supreme Court review. Based on Judge Miller's dissent there would be no reason for the Supreme Court to consider the case again, and if it did do so, it might conclude, as did Judge Miller, that the Ninth Circuit rule is a difference without a difference.
Comments