With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Finally, it bears noting that trial efficiency and the interests of justice do not require the transfer of this suit solely because MAK’s abandonment of the Marks claim is dismissed without prejudice. The court is aware that, should MAK re-file this claim in the Eastern District of Michigan, the commencement of separate proceedings in two districts is likely to inconvenience the parties. Nevertheless, the court’s “twin commitments to upholding forum selection clauses where these are found to apply and deferring to a plaintiffs proper choice of forum” constrain the court, in this case, to treating MAK’s claims separately. Phillips v. Audio Active, Ltd., 494 F.3d 378, 393 (2d Cir.2007); cf. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 221, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the majority of the factors the court

A: holding that district courts are required to compel arbitration of claims subject to arbitration clause even if the result is piecemeal litigation
B: holding that once the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes the existence of an arbitration agreement and that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement the trial court must compel arbitration
C: holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added
D: holding that the federal arbitration act requires district courts to compel arbitration of pendent arbitrable claims when one of the parties files a motion to compel even where the result would be the possibly inefficient maintenance of separate proceedings in different forums
A.