arbitration procedures available to all [AT & T Wireless] customers moots challenges to features of the [AT & T Wireless] provision that no longer apply.” Reply at 9 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff responds that she entered an agreement with AT & T Wireless, and that Cingular Wireless’ arbitration provision is therefore “not a part of the parties’ agreement in this case.” Opp’n at 1. Under California law, “[t]he critical juncture for determining whether a contract is unconscionable is the moment when it is entered into by both parties — not whether it is unconscionable in light of subsequent events.” Am. Software, Inc. v. Ali, 46 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1391, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 477 (1996); see also Kinney v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., 70 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1329, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 348 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 328 F.3d
recognizing unconscionability as a generally available contract defense holding claim of unconscionability requires showing of both procedural and substantive elements holding that a disability must be evaluated at the time of the challenged employment action holding that procedural unconscionability is properly evaluated at the time a contract is negotiated holding that courts should address a procedural unconscionability defense to the enforcement of an arbitration provision