the August 13th and August 26th agreements require Capili to arbitrate the same types of employment-related claims arising out of her position at Finish Line. Even assuming these agreements are- somehow different, Finish Line has provided the' Court no legal authority and no argument suggesting that the August 13th agreement provides an independent obligation to arbitrate given that the same subject matter is covered by the August 26th Arbitration Agreement, 2 . Because the Court finds that the Arbitration Agreement is procedurally unconscionable even without reference to Finish Line’s failure to provide the applicable AAA rules, the Court need not reach this murky issue. Compare Sparks v. Vista Del Mar Child and Family Servs., 207 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1523, 145 Cal. Rptr.3d 318 (2012) (<HOLDING>) with Lane v. Francis Capital Mgmt., 224
holding failhre to provide a copy of arbitration rules supports a finding of procedural unconscionability holding claim of unconscionability requires showing of both procedural and substantive elements holding that failure to attach the aaa arbitration rules weighed in favor of a finding of procedural unconscionability holding that courts should address a procedural unconscionability defense to the enforcement of an arbitration provision holding that an arbitration agreement that was invalid due to unconscionability was not enforceable