Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and unambiguously sets forth an agreement requiring the congregation and its members to submit “controversies] thereafter arising” between them to binding arbitration before a Beth Din of Orthodox Jewish rabbis. The absence of the word “arbitration” from Article II, Section 12 is of no legal significance. See McDonnell Douglas Fin. Corp. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 858 F.2d 825, 830 (2d Cir.1988) (stating that the absence of the word “arbitration” in a contract is “irrelevant” under the federal arbitration act where the parties clearly intend to submit disputes to their chosen instrument for definitive resolution); Powderly v. Metrabyte Corp., 866 F.Supp. 39, 42 (D.Mass.1994) (same). See generally Hercules & Co. v. Beltway Carpet Serv., Inc., 592 A.2d 1069, 1072-73 (D.C.1991) . Nor is there a requirement in the District of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that state courts in construing and interpreting state law are not bound by the decisions of federal courts
B. holding that the california false claims act cfca is pattemed on similar federal legislation and in construing the cfca it is appropriate to look to precedent construing the equivalent federal false claims act
C. holding that federal court decisions construing and applying the federal arbitration act may be regarded as persuasive authority in construing and applying corresponding provisions of our local arbitration act
D. holding that an aaa arbitration was a private proceeding and therefore that a decision by the arbitrator pursuant to the federal arbitration act did not constitute state action
E. holding that rookerfeldman precludes jurisdiction over a federal lawsuit to compel arbitration under the federal arbitration act because the action was inextricably intertwined with the plaintiffs failed statelaw action to compel arbitration under the louisiana arbitration act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.