Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
see also Swarna v. Al-Awadi, 607 F.Supp.2d 509, 514 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (explaining that initial suit was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction despite the fact that the diplomat had left his post because service was effected prior to the diplomat’s departure). The certification of Defendants’ status of diplomats by the State Department prior to service of the Amended Complaint therefore applies throughout the continuation of the suit, making Defendants immune from subject matter jurisdiction in this Court. Additionally, Defendants properly asserted that the “commercial activity” exception in Article 31(1)(c) of the Vienna Convention does not apply to the hiring of a domestic employee, therefore immunity is neither waived nor eliminated. See Mufti, 73 F.3d at 538 . Thus, Defendants sufficiently proved they
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that statement is admission by partyopponent if made by partys agent or servant concerning matter within course and scope of the agency or employment and made during existence of agency or employment relationship
B. recognizing that acts are not within the scope of employment and a master is insulated from liability under restatement  2191 where the servant was acting entirely for his own benefit
C. holding that sovereign immunity does not protect the state from claims for statutory employment benefits that constitute a protected property interest
D. holding that for a domestic corporation the foreign principal place of business does not count
E. holding that the employment of a domestic servant does not void diplomatic immunity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.