considered or honored. In sum, it is reasonable to infer procedural unconscionability”). Hernandez contends that, beyond the adhesive nature of the agreement, the fact that CarMax did not give her a copy of the DRRP before she signed the DRA adds an additional layer of procedural un-conseionability. She notes that courts have concluded that “[t]he failure to attach the applicable rules referred to in the agreement, or provide them to employee at the time the agreement is entered into establishes further procedural unconscion-ability.” California courts have found agreements procedurally unconscionable if they fail to attach the rules pursuant to which the arbitration will be conducted. See, e.g., Trivedi v. Curexo Technology Corp., 189 Cal.App.4th 387, 393, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 804 (2010) (<HOLDING>); Fitz v. NCR Corp., 118 Cal.App.4th 702, 721,
holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it did not attach the aaa rules holding failhre to provide a copy of arbitration rules supports a finding of procedural unconscionability holding that an arbitration in accordance with aaa rules is a binding arbitration holding that failure to attach the aaa arbitration rules weighed in favor of a finding of procedural unconscionability holding that courts should address a procedural unconscionability defense to the enforcement of an arbitration provision