— and specifically the delegation clause contained therein— does not take the form of an adhesion contract because the 2013 Agreement contained an opt-out provision that allowed drivers to avoid arbitration entirely, including the delegation clause, while still availing themselves of the other contract terms. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Ahmed, 283 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (applying California law and concluding that “Ahmed was not presented with a contract of adhesion because he was given the opportunity to opt-out of the Circuit City arbitration program by mailing in a simple one-page form”). As this Court discusses below, however, Ahmed was abrogated by the California Supreme Court and is no longer good law. See Gentry, 42 Cal.4th at 471-72 & n. 10, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 773 (<HOLDING>). But even more fundamentally, while the 2013
holding that ahmeds conclusion that the presence of an optout clause rendered a contract necessarily proeedurally conscionable under california law was not persuasive recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law holding the contract was not authorized by law holding class action waiver in cellular phone contract unconscionable under california law