In Parada v. Superior Court (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1554, the court stated that at the time the arbitration agreement was signed in 2006, at least seven decisions "had been decided and published" making it "reasonably clear" that the core challenged arbitration provisions--requiring a panel of three arbitrators (for the initial arbitration) and prohibiting consolidation or joinder of claims--were unconscionable. (Id. at p. 1586.) Based on this observation and the fact that there were "multiple" unconscionable contract provisions, the court found the case indistinguishable from Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) and declined to enforce the arbitration provision. (Ibid.)