The Oklahoma Bar Journal March 2025

this issue. Fortunately, the question has now been answered. In a recent United States Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court held that a district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal taken pursuant to 9 U. S. C. §16(a) on the question of arbitrability is ongoing. 5 In that case, Coinbase operates an online currency and cryptocur rency exchange platform. Abraham Bielski created a Coinbase account in 2021, and shortly after opening it, he alleges that a scammer fraud ulently accessed his account and stole more than $30,000 from him. Mr. Bielski alleged that Coinbase ignored his attempts at communi cation until he filed this lawsuit. Mr. Bielski alleged in his lawsuit – on behalf of himself and other simi larly situated persons – that Coinbase is a “financial institution” within the meaning of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) and that it fails to comply with its responsibilities under the EFTA, including conducting a timely and good-faith investigation of fraudulent transfers. Coinbase moved

Christi Court of Appeals recited a number of ways in which nonpar ties to a contract can be bound by arbitration agreements in contracts they did not sign. These circum stances are listed as: 1) The nonsigning party was incorporated by reference into the contract; 2) Assumption of the contract by the nonsigning party; 3) Agency by the nonsigning party and the signing party; 4) Alter ego; ABATEMENT In light of the expansion of the applicability of arbitration, the question arises as to what happens when the applicability of arbitra tion is contested in court. Does the arbitration proceed while the matter is being decided in court, or does the arbitration proceedings stop pending a court determination? Appellate courts, both state and fed eral, were significantly divided on 5) Equitable estoppel; and 6) Third-party beneficiary.

construction contract, and she was asserting the benefits of that contract in pursuing her litiga tion. Ms. Whiteley argued that her claims arose under a common law implied warranty of good and workmanlike construction. According to the Texas Supreme Court, in order for Ms. Whiteley to avoid the arbitration clause, her cause of action must stand “inde pendently” of any assertion under the original construction contract. Obviously, the full impact of this case has not yet been felt. However, the question arises as to whether an arbitration clause in a retail installment agreement is applicable to a subsequent pur chaser of consumer items, such as appliances, automobiles, etc. In the recent case of SCI Texas Funeral Services v. Gonzalez , 4 the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that a third-party beneficiary is bound by an arbitration clause in a contract even though they never specifically agreed to the contract, much less the arbitration clause. This case involved funeral and embalming services alleged to have been performed negligently. The details are gory and will not be recited here. A family member, who was not a party to the funeral services contract, filed suit in state court. The funeral services com pany asserted that there was an arbitration clause in the original contract that should be enforced, even though the plaintiff was not a party to the contract. The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that the family member was a third party beneficiary of the original contract and was, therefore, bound by the arbitration clause. The Corpus ARBITRATION AS TO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

8 | MARCH 2025

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL