With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". C Although a broadly focused scope-related objection misfires, a more narrowly focused objection looms. The district court resolved the Authority’s claim of supervening tribal court jurisdiction by turning directly to the contract’s forum-selection clause and passing upon its enforceability, see Ninigret, 32 F.Supp.2d at 504-05, thus holding, by implication, that the tribal exhaustion doctrine does not apply to the interpretation of such a provision. There is a difference of opinion, however, as to whether contractual forum-selection clauses escape application of the doctrine. Compare Basil Cook, 117 F.3d at 63-64, 69 (affirming application of tribal exhaustion doctrine despite the presence of an arbitration clause in the contract sub judice), and Snowbird, 666 F.Supp. at 1444 (<HOLDING>) with Altheimer, 983 F.2d at 814-15 (deciding

A: holding that a forumselection clause was mandatory because it provided for exclusive jurisdiction and venue in a particular court
B: holding party opposing forumselection clause must meet heavy burden by demonstrating clearly that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust
C: holding that the initial interpretation of a contractual forumselection clause must be made by the tribal court
D: holding that disputes involving questions of interpretation of a tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court
C.