With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Murphy’s reasoning was “cursory, meandering, and generally unclear.” Furthermore, Arbitrator Murphy, by failing to afford the Vana Award preclusive effect, created an anomaly, to the benefit of Smucker and the employee Rose would have bumped. However, the threshold for vacating an arbitration award is extremely high. Lat-timer-Stevens, 913 F.2d at 1169. “[Alb-sent a contractual provision to the contrary, the preclusive effect of an earlier arbitration award is to be determined by the arbitrator.” UAW v. Dana Corp., 278 F.3d 548, 557 (6th Cir.2002). In our case law, we have consistently showed considerable reluctance to allow district courts to vacate arbitration awards. In light of Arbitrator Murphy’s explicit examination of the Vana A thyl Corp., 644 F.2d 1044, 1050 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). However, we have explicitly declined to adopt

A: holding that the rights of an aggrieved party are substantially affected if the outcome either would have or may have been different had the error not occurred
B: holding that arbitrations may be subject to preclusion if they have same strict factual identities
C: holding that a states law is materially different from california law if application of the other states law leads to a different result
D: holding that arbitrations may be subject to preclusion if their facts are substantially similar or not materially different
D.