contract procedurally conscionable as a matter of California law. 755 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.2014). But Johnmohammadi does not discuss procedural unconscionability at all, and thus the case is not on point. See id. 31 . While Kilgore was decided after Gentry, the decision never cites Gentry or otherwise recognizes the rule of procedural unconscionability announced by the California Supreme Court therein. See Kilgore, 718 F.3d at 1059. Instead, it cites Ahmed, which is not good law, and was not good law at the time Kilgore was decided. Id. Thus Kilgore presents an inaccurate picture of California law and is equally inapposite here. 32 . This Court recognizes that Gentry was abrogated in part by the California Supreme Court in Iskanian. See Iskanian, 59 Cal.4th at 366, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 289 (<HOLDING>). However, “the [singular] Gentry rule” that
holding the state law claims were not preempted holding faa reverse preempted by state statute under mccarranf erguson holding faa reverse preempted by state statute under mccarranferguson holding that the gentry ruleruns afoul of the faa and is thus preempted holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted