willing to submit claims to arbitration. Without reasonable justification for this lack of mutuality, arbitration appears less as a forum for neutral dispute resolution and more as a means of maximizing employer advantage. Arbitration was not intended for this purpose.” Id. at 117-18, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669 (citations omitted). Like the arbitration agreement at issue in Armendariz, CarMax’s arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable. Although it is not hidden, or buried in a lengthy document, see Nat’l Bank of California, NA v. Gay, No. CV 11-2521-RSWL (JCGx), 2011 WL 2672359, *3 (C.D.Cal. June 29, 2011) (“[T]he element of surprise was not present at the time of contracting. The arbitration agreement is not hidden or difficult to read, as it w Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669 (<HOLDING>); Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 115
holding that although signing arbitration agreement was condition of employment agreement was not void for 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 there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable holding that an arbitration clause was not unconscionable because it did not unreasonably favor the defendants holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it did not attach the aaa rules