With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the arbitration provision in this case falls very much within the holding in Thomas. Accord Kovacs v. Carnival Corp., 2009 WL 4980277, Case No. 09-22630-CV-HUCK (S.D.Fla. Dec. 21, 2009) (remanding case because, inter alia, [there would be a prospective waiver of plaintiffs U.S. statutory remedies if the Court were] to compel arbitration of seaman’s Jones Act claim where Panamanian law would apply at arbitration); Pavon v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 09-22935-CV-LENARD (S.D.Fla. Jan. 20, 2010) (remanding seaman’s Jones Act claims in part because to arbitrate such claims would [prospectively waive Jones Act’s imposition of] strict liability on employers for the negligence of its employees); see also Sorica v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., Case No. 09-20917-HUCK (S.D.Fla. Aug. 4, 2009) (<HOLDING>) [.] The Court is not persuaded by the argument

A: recognizing that a provision providing for arbitration under bermuda law in a bermuda forum of a jones act claim is void under the thomas analysis
B: holding that injured seamans loss of consortium claim under state law was preempted by jones act
C: holding that the jones act does not preempt state law in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens and thus state law governs
D: holding that a usbased company was an employer under the jones act
A.