With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 932 So.2d at 540-41—the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held: “To make a genuine issue entitling the [party seeking to avoid arbitration] to a trial by jury [on the arbitrability question], an unequivocal denial that the agreement had been made [is] needed, and some evidence should [be] produced to substantiate the denial.” Chastain, 957 F.2d at 854 (quoting T & R Enters, v. Continental Grain Co., 613 F.2d 1272, 1278 (5th Cir.1980)). Florida cases have not so clearly elucidated a standard, but they all seem to echo Chastain’s reasoning by agreeing that to raise a “substantial issue” requiring an evidentiary hearing, a party must identify factual disputes that, if resolved in its favor, would compel a different result. See Wallshein v. Shugarman, 50 So.3d 89, 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>); Linden v. Auto Trend, Inc., 923 So.2d 1281,

A: holding that it was not error for trial court to decline to conduct full evidentiary hearing before trial on outrageous government conduct claim
B: holding that a trial court need not conduct an evidentiary hearing on a  motion to compel or stay arbitration if it can determine the issue as a matter of law after inspecting the relevant documents and affidavits andlistening to argument oh the issues
C: holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law
D: holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute
C.