With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Restaurants, Inc, 320 F Supp 2d 656, 668 (MD Tenn, 2004), aff'd 414 F3d 583 (CA 6, 2005). But then came Stolt-Nielsen, in which a majority of justices made clear that Bazzle was only a plurality decision, and thus did not contain a holding regarding anything, let alone deciding whether classwide arbitration was a gateway issue for the court to decide. Stolt-Nielsen, 559 US at 679-680. The Court made this point again in Oxford Health Plans LLC v Sutter, 569 US_,_; 133 S Ct 2064, 2068 n 2; 186 L Ed 2d 113 (2013), where a majority said that “[the] Court has not yet decided whether the availability of class arbitration” is a decision relegated to the court (thus a gateway issue) or the arbitrator (and thus a procedural, or subsidiary, issue). See also Reed Elsevier, 734 F3d at 597-598 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue that Stolt-Nielsen and

A: recognizing that bazzle contained no precedential rulings and holding that based on stoltnielsen class arbitration was a gateway issue for the court
B: holding that a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide
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 the court has no independent authority to compel arbitration of a class claim
A.