Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
questions in this appeal, we touch on a few preliminaries. Because the district court denied WMAS’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay judicial proceedings, this court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A). See May v. Higbee Co., 372 F.3d 757, 761-62 (5th Cir.2004). We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration and to stay judicial proceedings pursuant to the FAA. Tittle v. Enron Corp. 463 F.3d 410, 417 (5th Cir.2006). Although there are various rules for determining whether to grant a motion to compel arbitration, this case turns on a single and fundamental rule: Arbitration is a matter of contract, and, absent federal law to the contrary, this court must apply the contract law of the particular 08 (2d Cir.1990) ; Roney & Co. v. Goren, 875 F.2d 1218, 1223
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in a case factually similar to patten securities that a forum selectionconsent to jurisdiction clause should be understood as complementary to an agreement to arbitrate
B. holding the trial court may determine issue of condition precedent to enforcement of agreement to arbitrate
C. holding similar language to be an agreement to arbitrate only before the selfregulatory organizations whose rules were to be applied
D. holding that a party who has not expressly or implicitly agreed to be bound by an arbitration agreement cannot be compelled to arbitrate
E. holding the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement did not manifest an intent to require trustees to arbitrate contribution claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.