In Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, the California Supreme rejected the argument that an arbitration provision is necessarily substantively unconscionable merely because it excludes certain claims that would be more likely brought by the more powerful party. (Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 246-250.) In Pinnacle, the agreement required the homeowners association and property owners to arbitrate all construction disputes with the developer without requiring the developer to arbitrate any of its nonconstruction-related claims against these parties. (Id. at pp. 248-249.) The court found the agreement enforceable, explaining that "arbitration clauses may be limited to a specific subject or subjects and that such clauses are not required to 'mandate the arbitration of all claims between the parties in order to avoid invalidation on grounds of unconscionability.'" (Id. at p. 248 .)