In Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, Inc., 2012 WL 3635279 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2012), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision adopted the Sanchez analysis lock-stock-and-barrel, declining to order an automobile case to arbitration due to the ‘unconscionable’ arbitration clause in the RISC.

Unconscionability. Applying a sliding scale for procedural and substantive unconscionability, we conclude the Contract’s arbitration clause is unconscionable under California’s doctrine of unconscionability that generally applies to all contracts. ( Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 113–114; Gutierrez, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at pp. 87–88.) Because there is a high degree of procedural unconscionability, less evidence of substantive unconscionability is required. (Armendariz, at p. 114.) However, as discussed above, there is ample evidence of substantive unconscionability, resulting in our conclusion there is a moderate to high degree of substantive unconscionability. We conclude the arbitration provision is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable under California law.