Zelaya vs. Nissan North America, Inc.

wanted to have an attorney review it but was pressured to sign it “under duress” by Defendant’s management. (¶¶ 13-15.)

Plaintiff has not shown the March 2024 arbitration agreement was invalid. Plaintiff electronically consented to the detailed agreement, which specifies the arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to JAMS Employment Arbitration rules. Plaintiff has not shown the JAMS rules are substantively unconscionable under California law. Although Plaintiff later reaffirmed his consent to arbitration when signing documents accepting other positions within the company, the circumstances of those documents do not demonstrate unconscionability as to the initial agreement to arbitrate, which had already been executed at hiring.

Defendant has demonstrated the existence of a binding arbitration agreement which is not unconscionable under California law. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate there was no

mutual consent or that unconscionability renders the agreement invalid. Therefore, the motion is granted. 12 24-01422867 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

Zelaya vs. Nissan North Moving attorney has not shown he has complied with the requirements America, Inc. of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. It does not appear a proof of service of the form Notice and Motion (MC-051) or Declaration (MC- 052) has been filed.

The motion of Prestige Legal Solutions, P.C. to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Veronica Zelaya is CONTINUED to August 27, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., in Department C33. Prestige Legal Solutions, P.C. is ordered to re-serve all moving papers along with a proof of service within five court days before the new hearing date. Moving attorney to give notice of new hearing date.