UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE EMILIO RONDEROS, an No. 21-55685 individual, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 5:21-cv-00639- MWF-KK v. USF REDDAWAY, INC., an Oregon OPINION Corporation; YELLOW CORPORATION, FKA YRC Worldwide, Inc.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 11, 2022 * Pasadena, California

Filed August 22, 2024 * Because Defendants-Appellants USF Reddaway, Inc. and Yellow Corporation filed for bankruptcy, this matter was automatically stayed on September 6, 2023. See 11 U.S.C. § 362. On July 29, 2024, based on a joint stipulation of the parties, the Bankruptcy Court modified the stay to allow proceedings in this matter to resume. 2 RONDEROS V. USF REDDAWAY, INC.

Before: Mark J. Bennett and Jennifer Sung, Circuit Judges, and Elizabeth E. Foote, ** District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Sung; Dissent by Judge Bennett

SUMMARY ***

Arbitration

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion brought by defendants USF Reddaway, Inc. and Yellow Corporation (collectively “Reddaway”) to compel arbitration of plaintiff Jose Emilio Rondero’s employment- related claims. Applying California law, the panel held that Reddaway’s arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable to a moderate degree because the agreement was adhesive, the circumstances under which Reddaway required Ronderos to sign the agreement involved significant oppression, and the arbitration agreement involved some surprise because the cost-splitting provision is substantively opaque. The panel also held that two of the arbitration agreement’s provisions were substantively unconscionable: (1) the one-sided filing provision, which imposes notice requirements and a one- year statute of limitations only on Ronderos; and (2) the one-

The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the ** Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. RONDEROS V. USF REDDAWAY, INC. 3

sided preliminary injunction carve-out, which exempts from arbitration only Reddaway’s claims for preliminary injunctive relief. The panel also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to sever the unconscionable provisions and enforce the remainder of the agreement. Dissenting, Judge Bennett would hold that the district court abused its discretion because it misapplied California law in declining to sever the collateral provisions from an arbitration agreement that includes a severability clause. It should have severed those provisions and granted Reddaway’s motion to compel arbitration. Judge Bennett wrote that both the majority and the district court decisions evince the type of “judicial hostility to arbitration” that led Congress to pass the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639, 649 (2022). Judge Bennett also wrote that both decisions are directly contrary to “the FAA’s edict against singling out [arbitration] contracts for disfavored treatment.” Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship v. Clark, 581 U.S. 246, 252 (2017).

COUNSEL Alireza Alivandivafa (argued), Alireza Alivandivafa, Los Angeles, California; Azad Marvazy, Light Law Group APC, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee. D