With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". decides that issue in the first instance). That the Stolt-Nielsen Court did not address which entity— court or arbitrator—should decide whether an arbitration agreement permitted class arbitration, was more recently made clear in Oxford Health Plans, 569 US at _; 133 S Ct at 2068 n 2. The question we are faced with today has therefore not been decided by the United States Supreme Court, and thus Stolt-Nielsen does not require rejection of those post -Bazzle decisions holding that absent contract language addressing the issue, consolidation was for the arbitrator to decide. See Lee, 982 F Supp 2d at 1113 (rejecting the argument that Stolt-Nielsen changed the legal landscape on gateway issues, since it did not involve one), and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, 671 F3d at 638-639 (<HOLDING>). D. CLASS ARBITRATION DECISIONS Having

A: holding that mental capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement is an issue for the court to decide but noting that we have concluded that whether an arbitration agreement binds a nonsignatory is a gateway matter to be determined by the court rather than the arbitrator unless the parties dearly and unmistakably provide otherwise
B: recognizing that bazzle contained no precedential rulings and holding that based on stoltnielsen class arbitration was a gateway issue for the court
C: holding that stoltnielsen did not require it to modify its prior holding in employers ins co of wausau 443 f3d at 577 that whether to consolidate arbitration cases was not a gateway issue
D: holding that in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration a court must consider 1 whether the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement 2 whether an arbitrable issue exists and 3 whether the right to arbitration has been waived
C.