Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Cook chose not to present evidence available to him at the suppression hearing, but the issues he raised and were determined there are identical to the issues here. Next, Cook contends the suppression hearing was not a complete, full, and fair litigation of these issues, but was a summary proceeding addressing some immaterial evidentiary issues which likely would have been re-considered had he gone to trial. To the contrary, the constitutional issues in Cook’s criminal proceedings were litigated in an evidentiary hearing at which he was represented by counsel, and had the right and opportunity to testify, present evidence, call and cross-examine witnesses, and appeal the court’s ruling. See 3D Constr. & Dev., L.L.C. v. Old Standard Life Ins. Co., 117 P.3d 1082, 1087 (Utah App.2005) . There is no reason to doubt the quality,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a party against whom a motion for summary judgment is filed is entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard
B. holding a party seeking mandamus must serve the party against whom relief is sought
C. holding the completely fully fairly element is met if the party against whom preclusion is sought had adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue
D. holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard
E. holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.