Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
not permit a defendant to bring counterclaims that would not independently qualify for summary process. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3213:17; Friends Lumber Inc. v. Cornell Dev. Corp., 243 A.D.2d 886, 888, 663 N.Y.S.2d 327, 330 (3d Dep’t 1997). According to the district court, Wireless’s allegations did not so qualify. The court therefore concluded that Wireless could not have asserted its counterclaims in a state proceeding governed by § 3213. But § 3213 is a procedural rule, and when this case was removed to federal court, the regime of the Federal Rules replaced that of § 3213. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(e) (“These rules apply to civil actions removed to the United States district courts from the state courts and govern procedure after removal.”); TPO Inc. v. FDIC, 487 F.2d 131, 133 (3d Cir.1973) . Cf. Sage Realty v. Insurance Co. of N. Am.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding  after summary process was sought under  3213 and the ease was removed to federal court  that the bringing of counterclaims was governed by the federal rules not cplr  3213
B. holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence
C. holding that after removal of diversity case to federal court the federal court may grant summary judgment notwithstanding earlier denial of summary judgment motion by state court
D. holding that a federal court with diversity jurisdiction must apply the choiceoflaw rules of the state in which the federal court sits
E. recognizing privilege under federal rules
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.