Coinbase, Inc. v. Abdelnaby

S.D. New York

Coinbase, Inc. v. Abdelnaby

DecidedApril 17, 2025

Docket7:25-cv-00904

StatusUnknown

This text of Coinbase, Inc. v. Abdelnaby (Coinbase, Inc. v. Abdelnaby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coinbase, Inc. v. Abdelnaby, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COINBASE, INC.,

Petitioner, ORDER -against- 25-CV-00904 (PMH) ABIER ABDELNABY,

Respondent. PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: On January 30, 2025, Coinbase, Inc. (“Coinbase” or “Petitioner”) commenced the instant action by filing a petition to confirm an arbitration award and enter judgment in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act. (Doc. 1). Specifically, “Petitioner requests confirmation of the arbitration award dismissing all claims” against Coinbase issued on September 10, 2024, in American Arbitration Association Case No. 01-23-0001-2094, Abdelnaby v. Coinbase, Inc. and Coinbase Global, Inc. (“Award”). (Id. ¶ 1). On March 25, 2025, Respondent Abier Abdelnaby, proceeding pro se, filed an Answer admitting “All” allegations and pressing no defenses. (Doc. 11). The petition is thus unopposed. District Courts generally treat a “petitioner’s application to confirm or vacate an arbitral award as akin to a motion for summary judgment.” City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 136 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 109 (2d Cir. 2006)). The Court’s review of an arbitration award, however, is “severely limited so as not to frustrate the twin goals of arbitration, namely, settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation.” United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC, 804 F.3d 270, 274-75 (2d Cir. 2015). The Court finds, after reviewing the petition and the supporting materials, that there is no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the Award. The Arbitrator’s decision provides more than “a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached

... necessary to confirm the [A]ward.” D.H. Blair & Co., 462 F.3d at 110. Nor are there any grounds under Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act for vacating the Award or under Section 11 to modify the Award. Accordingly, the petition to confirm the Award is GRANTED. Petitioner is directed to file its Proposed Judgment consistent with this Order by April 23, 2025.

SO ORDERED. Dated: White Plains, New York April 16, 2025 PHILIPM.HALPERN =———<“i‘“SCS United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COINBASE, INC.,

Petitioner, ORDER -against- 25-CV-00904 (PMH) ABIER ABDELNABY,

Respondent. PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: On January 30, 2025, Coinbase, Inc. (“Coinbase” or “Petitioner”) commenced the instant action by filing a petition to confirm an arbitration award and enter judgment in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act. (Doc. 1). Specifically, “Petitioner requests confirmation of the arbitration award dismissing all claims” against Coinbase issued on September 10, 2024, in American Arbitration Association Case No. 01-23-0001-2094, Abdelnaby v. Coinbase, Inc. and Coinbase Global, Inc. (“Award”). (Id. ¶ 1). On March 25, 2025, Respondent Abier Abdelnaby, proceeding pro se, filed an Answer admitting “All” allegations and pressing no defenses. (Doc. 11). The petition is thus unopposed. District Courts generally treat a “petitioner’s application to confirm or vacate an arbitral award as akin to a motion for summary judgment.” City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 136 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 109 (2d Cir. 2006)). The Court’s review of an arbitration award, however, is “severely limited so as not to frustrate the twin goals of arbitration, namely, settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation.” United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC, 804 F.3d 270, 274-75 (2d Cir. 2015). The Court finds, after reviewing the petition and the supporting materials, that there is no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the Award. The Arbitrator’s decision provides more than “a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached

... necessary to confirm the [A]ward.” D.H. Blair & Co., 462 F.3d at 110. Nor are there any grounds under Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act for vacating the Award or under Section 11 to modify the Award. Accordingly, the petition to confirm the Award is GRANTED. Petitioner is directed to file its Proposed Judgment consistent with this Order by April 23, 2025.

SO ORDERED. Dated: White Plains, New York April 16, 2025 PHILIPM.HALPERN =———<“i‘“SCS United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Coinbase, Inc. v. Abdelnaby, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coinbase-inc-v-abdelnaby-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack