The Opinion Applies Established California Unconscionability Law.

        In Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC, 111 Cal.App.5th 1009 (4/3 6/6/25) (Sanchez, Moore, Motoike), the California Court of Appeal affirmed denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Newport Healthcare required new hire Karla Velarde to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment, presenting it among 31 documents to be signed immediately while an HR manager waited. Velarde expressed discomfort and lack of understanding, but the HR manager falsely assured her the agreement would resolve issues without needing or paying for lawyers. The agreement, however, mandated adversarial arbitration under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, with each side bearing its own attorney fees unless ordered otherwise. The court found procedural unconscionability due to the adhesive nature, time pressure, and misrepresentations. It found substantive unconscionability because the agreement created expectations of an inexpensive, informal process but imposed a burdensome, lawyer-driven one-sided procedure favoring the employer. Taken together, these defects rendered the agreement unenforceable. The court did not reach the separate trial court finding that the agreement unlawfully barred judicial review.