Villagomez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE VILLAGOMEZ, Case No. 23-cv-03672-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. COMPEL ARBITRATION

TESLA, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 16 Defendant.

Tesla’s motion to compel arbitration is granted and the case is dismissed without prejudice. See Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1073-74 (9th Cir. 2014). This order assumes familiarity with the facts, the parties’ arguments, and the legal standards. Prior to being hired by Tesla, Villagomez was required to accept and sign an offer letter containing an arbitration agreement. Villagomez concedes he signed the letter and that the arbitration agreement covers the individual claims he now brings against Tesla. But he argues the agreement is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. In support of procedural unconscionability, Villagomez asserts the agreement was a contract of adhesion and failed to explain that arbitration meant “giving up the right to a jury trial.” Unfortunately for Villagomez, these arguments have been routinely rejected by California courts. See Serafin v. Balco Properties…