Alfia v. Coinbase Global, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-08689
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Alfia v. Coinbase Global, Inc., Judge Gilliam denied Alfia’s request to file a sur-reply concerning Coinbase’s arbitration motion.
Adam Alfia and the proposed group of similarly situated plaintiffs, as well as Coinbase Global, Inc., because the ruling concerned whether Alfia could submit additional briefing about Coinbase’s arbitration motion.
What happened
In Alfia v. Coinbase Global, Inc., Adam Alfia asked to file a short additional brief responding to Coinbase’s reply about its request to require arbitration and pause the case.
Alfia argued that new information and Coinbase’s arguments about its user agreements justified another filing. He wanted to submit declarations concerning Coinbase customers who allegedly were locked out of their accounts until accepting an updated agreement.
Judge Haywood Gilliam denied Alfia’s motion for permission to file the sur-reply. The order did not decide Coinbase’s separate request to require arbitration or whether the agreements were unconscionable.
The detailed version
- Alfia v. Coinbase Global, Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-08689
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 23, 2022
Background
Adam Alfia, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated people, moved for permission to file a sur-reply to Coinbase Global, Inc.’s reply supporting its motion to compel arbitration and stay the case. A sur-reply is an additional filing responding to arguments made in a reply brief. Alfia requested a filing of no more than five pages.
Alfia argued that new facts had developed after Coinbase filed its reply. He said Coinbase had argued that Alfia had a meaningful choice to use other cryptocurrency exchanges or stop trading digital currency. Alfia proposed submitting declarations from Coinbase consumers who allegedly were being locked out of their accounts until they agreed to an updated user agreement. He also pointed to Coinbase’s arguments that the 2017 and 2019 user agreements required arbitration, questioning why Coinbase was asking consumers to accept an updated agreement containing an arbitration provision.
Ruling
The order states only: “DENIED.” Judge Gilliam therefore denied Alfia’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply. The order did not rule on the merits of Coinbase’s motion to compel arbitration, the enforceability or unconscionability of the arbitration provisions, or the request to stay the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.