Coinbase, Inc. et al. v. Kramer et al.
U.S. Supreme Court (cert. stage)
- Home
- Retail Litigation Center
- Coinbase, Inc. et al. v. Kramer et al.
Date: June 25, 2025
RLC’s Position: The RLC’s brief in support of certiorari explains that the foundation of California’s McGill rule (a California judge-made doctrine stating that claims for “public injunctive relief” cannot be waived as a part of an arbitration agreement) is at odds with Supreme Court precedent on the FAA. As a result, application of the rule in California courts conflicts with federal court treatment of the same issue, which leads to jurisdictional gamesmanship to avoid valid arbitration agreements. Supreme Court review is needed.
Counsel: Neal Kumar Katyal, Will Havemann, Nathaniel Zelinsky & team at Milbank drafted the brief.
RLC’s Position: The RLC’s brief in support of certiorari explains that the foundation of California’s McGill rule (a California judge-made doctrine stating that claims for “public injunctive relief” cannot be waived as a part of an arbitration agreement) is at odds with Supreme Court precedent on the FAA. As a result, application of the rule in California courts conflicts with federal court treatment of the same issue, which leads to jurisdictional gamesmanship to avoid valid arbitration agreements. Supreme Court review is needed.
Counsel: Neal Kumar Katyal, Will Havemann, Nathaniel Zelinsky & team at Milbank drafted the brief.