Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the Arbitration Agreement Under issue one, Mohamed argues the Auto Nation parties could not enforce the arbitration agreement because they were not signatories to the agreement and did not prove they were in privity with a signatory. The initial burden of the party seeking to compel arbitration-to establish the arbitration agreement’s existence-includes proving the entity seeking to enforce the arbitration agreement was a party to it or had the right to enforce the agreement notwithstanding. See Pepe Int’l Dev. Co. v. Pub Brewing Co., 915 S.W.2d 925, 931 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ) (combined appeal & orig. proceeding); Texas Private Employment Ass’n v. Lyrir-Jay Int’l, Inc., 888 S.W.2d 529, 531, 532 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ) (op. & op. on reh’g) . The burden of showing one’s status as a party
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding trial court must decide whether to compel arbitration of personal injury claim of party who was not signatory to arbitration agreement
B. holding association itself was not party to arbitration agreement set out in associations bylaws that required associations members to arbitration disputes among themselves
C. recognizing that in reviewing ruling on motion to compel arbitration we first determine whether party seeking arbitration established existence of arbitration agreement
D. 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
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.