With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". their alienation by appellants, present a somewhat closer question. On the one hand, the “cautionary notice,” a creature of Puerto Rico law, is roughly analogous to the Anglo-American notice of lis pendens, see Cruz La Corte v. Mojica Sandoz, 109 D.P.R. 354 (1980); see also Correa Sanchez v. Registrar, 113 D.P.R. 581, 13 O.T. 750, 760 (1982) (“cautionary notice” is recorded in Registry of Property for primary purpose of subjecting property to the remedy obtained in a pending legal proceeding). Orders imposing lis pendens have been viewed as “attachments” for section 1292(a) purposes. See Rosenfeldt v. Comprehensive Acctg. Serv. Corp., 514 F.2d 607, 609 n. 2 (7th Cir.1975) (Stevens, J.); but cf. Beefy King Int’l, Inc. v. Veigle, 464 F.2d 1102, 1104 (5th Cir.1972) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, a “prohibition against

A: holding new york could lawfully modify a florida custody decree because florida court had right under florida law to change the decree
B: holding that florida courts would apply florida law to contracts insuring real property located within the state
C: holding failure to pay a debt due under a promissory note is a breach of contract claim under florida law
D: holding lis pendens analogous to injunction under florida law
D.