With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". N.C. Gen. Stat. § l-567.3(a) (1999). In the instant case, defendant sought a dismissal based on “the terms and provisions of the parties [sic] Employment Agreement which provides for binding arbitration” as follows: The parties shall attempt amicably to resolve disagreements by negotiating with each other. In the event that the matter is not amicably resolved through negotiation, any controversy, dispute or disagreement arising out of or relating to this Agreement (a “Controversy”) shall be settled exclusively by binding arbitration[.] Defendant’s motion is one “ ‘showing’ an agreement described in G.S. 1-567.2,” id., and, as such, constitutes an application for arbitration within the meaning of section 1-567.3(a). Cf. Adams v. Nelsen, 313 N.C. 442, 447, 329 S.E.2d 322, 325 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the trial court was required to

A: recognizing that in reviewing ruling on motion to compel arbitration we first determine whether party seeking arbitration established existence of arbitration agreement
B: holding that motion to dismiss which conspicuously omitted any reference to an arbitration agreement was not the proper method to stay litigation and compel arbitration as it was not a motion showing an agreement to arbitrate under section 15673
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: recognizing circuit agreement that a motion to dismiss based on an arbitration clause is proper under rule 12b3
B.