With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that an agreement reached at a resolution meeting would have been enforceable in federal court); L.K. ex rel. L.K. v. Burlingame Sch. Dist., No. C 08-02743, 2008 WL 2563155, at *4 n. 8 (N.D.Cal. June 23, 2008) (“The Court also notes that ... the [IDEA] permits settlement agreements reached through a resolution session under 1415(f) to be enforceable in federal courts ....”); Traverse Bay Area Intermediate Sch. Dist v. Mich. Dep’t of Educ., No. 5:06-CV-139, 2007 WL 2219352, at *1 (W.D.Mich. July 27, 2007) (“[Written settlement agreements reached during the mediation process or in a resolution session which comply with the [IDEA] requirements are now enforceable in state and federal courts.”); Bowman v. District of Columbia, No. 05-01933, 2006 WL 2221703, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug. 2, 2006) (<HOLDING>). Here, EPISD offered R.R. all of his requested

A: recognizing that a district court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement reached either at the resolution meeting or during mediation
B: holding that trial court is without authority to modify a settlement agreement but may enforce and interpret it
C: holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt
D: holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce arbitration settlement agreement about lease royalty rates
A.