With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claims’”); O’Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants, 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 284, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 116 (2003) (“In this case, the 1991 employment contract begins: ‘Confirming our recent conversation, this Agreement sets forth the terms of your employment.’ The typed eight-page document appears to be a boilerplate contract givén to all employees who have access to confidential information. It contains multiple generic provisions. The only portion filled in by hand is O’Hare’s salary: $50,000 a year. Nothing in this document suggests it was the product of ‘give and take.’ In fact, the arbitration provision is so one-sided it defies credulity to suggest either [that] O’Hare had any input on that issue or [that] any expressed desire to change its terms would have b Cal.Rptr.3d 88 (2004) (<HOLDING>); Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc., 114 Cal.App.4th

A: holding that an arbitration clause was not unconscionable because it did not unreasonably favor the defendants
B: 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  
C: holding that failure to attach the aaa arbitration rules weighed in favor of a finding of procedural unconscionability
D: holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it did not attach the aaa rules
D.