Hickox v. Chainalysis
Eli Hickox v. Chainalysis, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1-20, inclusive
- 3:26-cv-06217
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 18
In Eli Hickox v. Chainalysis, Inc., the court ordered private arbitration and administratively closed the case.
Eli Hickox and Chainalysis, Inc.; the order sends Hickox’s claims to private arbitration, changes specified arbitration terms, stays formal court discovery, and administratively closes the case.
What happened
Eli Hickox sued Chainalysis, Inc. after the case was removed from San Francisco County Superior Court to federal court. The parties agreed that Hickox’s claims should proceed in private arbitration.
The parties agreed to apply California law, change several parts of the arbitration agreement that referred to New York law and New York County, and have Chainalysis pay the arbitrator, forum, and filing costs except for Hickox’s initial filing fee. They also agreed to mediation before arbitration and to pause formal discovery until arbitration discovery begins.
The court, whose judge is not identified in the provided text, ordered the agreed terms, retained jurisdiction over the arbitration and any resulting award, and administratively closed the case subject to reopening under the order.
The detailed version
- Hickox v. Chainalysis · No. 3:26-cv-06217
- Sept. 11, 2026
Background
Eli Hickox filed the action in San Francisco County Superior Court on March 27, 2026, and filed a First Amended Complaint on April 20, 2026. Chainalysis, Inc. removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 22, 2026. The provided text does not describe the underlying claims.
The parties stated that Hickox had signed an enforceable arbitration agreement governed by New York law and that he worked and lived in California at all relevant times. They agreed that the arbitration would instead proceed under California law and under the requirements identified in California Labor Code § 925, California Code of Civil Procedure provisions governing arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act, and Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. The parties were represented by counsel.
Court’s Order
The court ordered that Hickox’s claims be submitted to private arbitration. It ordered that the arbitration be conducted under California law and directed that the agreement’s references to New York law, New York arbitration rules, equal sharing of arbitration costs, separate payment of each party’s attorneys’ fees and costs, and arbitration in New York County be stricken as specified in the order.
The order requires Chainalysis to pay the arbitrator, forum, and filing fees, except for Hickox’s initial filing fee. It states that the parties may challenge or appeal an arbitration decision, order, or award to the extent California law permits. Before arbitration begins, the parties must participate in mediation through the court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Multi-Option Program. The order also states that exchanging initial disclosures does not waive Chainalysis’s right to enforce arbitration and that formal discovery in the court action is stayed until discovery in arbitration begins.
The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement and to confirm, correct, or vacate the arbitration award. It ordered that the case be administratively closed, subject to reopening under paragraph 7 of the order. The provided text does not identify the judge by name; the order is signed only with “IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Classification Basis
This is a procedural order because the court directed the parties to arbitration and administratively closed the case without deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.