court recognized, however, [that the fact] ‘[t]hat the agreement is required does not make it unenforceable, absent other factors.’ ... The trial court did not find oppression or surprise, and we agree. The stand-alone arbitration agreement was not hidden, but prominently featured as part of the employment application, and there are no ‘other indicia of procedural unconscionability.’ The adhesive nature of the agreement[, however,] is evidence of some degree of procedural un-conscionability,” citing Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P., 203 Cal.App.4th 771, 797, 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 773 (2012)). (5) Whether the Arbitration Agreement is Substantively Unconscionable The foregoing analysis indicates that the arbitration agreement was somewhat unconscionable procedurally. Cf. Nagrampa, 469 F.3d at 1284 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the court can find that it is
holding that procedural unconscionability is properly evaluated at the time a contract is negotiated holding the jury waiver invalid where waiver was inconspicuous appeared to be nonnegotiable and there was unequal bargaining power holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish procedural unconscionability since he had a reasonable opportunity to consider the agreement and the arbitration clause was clearly set forth in the contract holding that there was only minimal procedural unconscionability despite defendants overwhelming bargaining power its concession that the contract was nonnegotiable and its drafting of the contract recognizing unconscionability as a generally available contract defense