With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the present case. The arbitration clause expressly limits Powertel’s liability to actual damages, thereby precluding the possibility that Powertel will ever be exposed to punitive damages, no matter how outrageous its conduct might be. Powertel argues that this limitation works both ways, but as a practical matter, it is difficult to imagine any situation in which a telephone company would have an action for punitive damages against its customers. In effect, this provision removes a significant remedy that would otherwise be available in consumer litigation against a corporation. The arbitration clause also effectively removes Powertel’s exposure to any remedy that could be pursued on behalf of a class of consumers. See Champ v. Siegel Trading Co., Inc., 55 F.3d 269 (7th Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>). Class litigation provides the most

A: holding trial court must decide whether to compel arbitration of personal injury claim of party who was not signatory to arbitration agreement
B: holding that the court has no independent authority to compel arbitration of a class claim
C: holding that once the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes the existence of an arbitration agreement and that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement the trial court must compel arbitration
D: holding that rookerfeldman precludes jurisdiction over a federal lawsuit to compel arbitration under the federal arbitration act because the action was inextricably intertwined with the plaintiffs failed statelaw action to compel arbitration under the louisiana arbitration act
B.