to sever the offending terms. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Where, however, a contract expressly states that an unconscionable provision is not to be severed from the remainder of the agreement, the Court must enforce the non-severability clause according to its terms. See Chalk v. T-Mobile USA Inc., 560 F.3d 1087, 1098 (9th Cir.2009) (recognizing that while “[i]n the usual case” the court must consider whether an unenforceable term “should be severed from the arbitration agreement as a whole,” where the “arbitration agreement itself includes a provision prohibiting severance” the court must invalidate the entirety of the arbitration agreement “in accordance with [the] severability clause”); Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 498 F.3d 976, 986-87 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). This is because courts “must ‘rigorously
holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable holding that when an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of the statute  the arbitration clause is not enforceable and that the language insulating an employer from damages and equitable relief renders the clause unenforceable holding that the best way to harmonize a choice of law clause and an arbitration clause is to apply the substantive case law of the named state to the entire agreement including the arbitration clause holding that an arbitration clause was not unconscionable because it did not unreasonably favor the defendants holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause