With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". parties’ memoranda of law in assessing the facts relevant to the arbitration issue. The trial court concluded that, although there was a valid agreement to arbitrate to which Epstein was not a party, he was nevertheless bound based on an agency relationship and the fact that the issues relating to him were intertwined with the issues already being litigated. While these theories might, if proved, subject Epstein to the authority of the arbitration clause, see generally Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So.2d 688 (Fla.1999); Qubty v. Nagda, 817 So.2d 952, 957-58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), the facts supporting the issues of arbitration were disputed and the trial court should have held an eviden-tiary hearing to resolve them. See Sanchez v. Woemer Mgmt., Inc., 867 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). We accordingly reverse and remand for the

A: holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute
B: holding that an unsworn memorandum is a pleading and not an evidentiary document therefore it had no evidentiary value and should not have been admitted as an exhibit
C: holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case
D: holding that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing when the petitioners habeas submissions demonstrate that the petitioner is conclusively entitled to relief in such circumstances an evidentiary hearing would be a waste of judicial resources
B.