Mot. at 3. Finish Line does not assert that it would have negotiated the terms of its Arbitration Agreement with Capili — a retail sales associate — or that Finish Line’s unequal bargaining power was mitigated by Capili’s sophistication. See Haisha Corp. v. Sprint Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-2773-GPC MDD, 2015 WL 224407, at *5 (S.D.Cal. Jan. 15, 2015) (finding that the fact that’the parties to the arbitration agreement were “two sophisticated corporate entities” mitigated against a finding of procedural unconscionability). Although the Court notes that the fact that Finish Line’s automated process specifically called out the Arbitration Agreement reduces the level of unfairness, see Molina v. Scandinavian Designs, Inc., No. 13-cv-4256 NC, 2014 WL 1615177, at *7 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 21, 2014) (<HOLDING>), the Court finds that the circumstances of,the
holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish procedural unconscionability since he had a reasonable opportunity to consider the agreement and the arbitration clause was clearly set forth in the contract holding the amount of procedural unconscionability was limited by the fact that the arbitration agreement was presented as a separate two page document holding that courts should address a procedural unconscionability defense to the enforcement of an arbitration provision holding that an arbitration agreement that was invalid due to unconscionability was not enforceable holding that although signing arbitration agreement was condition of employment agreement was not void for unconscionability