Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
5 . DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670, 677-78 (Tex.1990) (quoting Restatement (second) of Conflict of Laws § 187 (1971)). 6 . Id. at 678 (quoting Restatement (second) of Conflict of Laws § 187 (1971)). 7 . Id. ("Florida has a substantial relationship to the parties and the transaction because Wackenhut's corporate offices are there, and some of the negotiations between DeSantis and George Wackenhut occurred there.”). 8 . Uniform Arbitration Act § 1 ef seq. 9 . Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 171.001 et seq. 10 . 388 U.S. 395, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967). 11 . Id. at 403 olo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-22-221. 26 . Uniform Arbitration Act § 28. 27 . Compare Volt Info. Sciences v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 476, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989) , with Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the faa did not preempt california law permitting court to stay arbitration pending resolution of related litigation where parties had selected california law in a standard choice of law provision
B. holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision
C. holding fee splitting provision of arbitration agreement unconscionable under california law
D. recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired
E. holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.