claims’”); O’Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants, 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 284, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 116 (2003) (“In this case, the 1991 employment contract begins: ‘Confirming our recent conversation, this Agreement sets forth the terms of your employment.’ The typed eight-page document appears to be a boilerplate contract givén to all employees who have access to confidential information. It contains multiple generic provisions. The only portion filled in by hand is O’Hare’s salary: $50,000 a year. Nothing in this document suggests it was the product of ‘give and take.’ In fact, the arbitration provision is so one-sided it defies credulity to suggest either [that] O’Hare had any input on that issue or [that] any expressed desire to change its terms would have b Cal.Rptr.3d 88 (2004) (<HOLDING>); Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc., 114 Cal.App.4th
holding that an arbitration clause was not unconscionable because it did not unreasonably favor the defendants holding that failure to attach the aaa arbitration rules weighed in favor of a finding of procedural unconscionability holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was imposed on employees as a condition of employment and there was no opportunity to negotiate   holding that an arbitration in accordance with aaa rules is a binding arbitration holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it did not attach the aaa rules