Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in 8 CSR 60-2.025(9); and failing, as required by § 213.075(3), to “promptly” investigate Taylor’s complaint. Specifically, it claimed that the writ should have issued in that before a right-to-sue letter could issue to Taylor, the MCHR had a regulatory duty to give it notice of Taylor’s complaint and a statutory duty to promptly investigate the complaint, such that the breach of one or both of those duties violated due process, with respect to the issuance of the letter, mandating the setting aside of the letter. Mandamus, pursuant to § 536.150, will lie where the MCHR’s executive director’s actions in issuing the right-to-sue letter violated prescribed procedures and applicable law. See State ex rel. Martin-Erb v. Mo. Comm’n on Human Rights, 77 S.W.3d 600, 608 (Mo. banc 2002) . The writ will not issue, however, unless
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury
B. holding that the actions were not actions of public and general applicability but were actions directed principally and primarily at plaintiffs
C. holding that section 536150 gives the complainant the right to file a mandamus action to determine whether the executive directors actions were in fact accomplished under prescribed procedures and were lawful 
D. holding if the legislature had the power to confer upon the county commissioners jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether or not a town was of undue extent and to deprive it of a part of its territory then the proceeding being statutory before a body of limited powers the record must show affirmatively that such a case was brought before them as they were authorized to hear and determine and that all the jurisdictional facts were found to exist where the jurisdiction and power to hear and determine depends upon the existence of a fact that fact must appear or the proceedings are coram non judice and void
E. holding that as part of a new standard of review requiring directors taking defensive actions to show that those actions were reasonable in relation to threat posed such proof is materially enhanced  by the approval of a board comprised of a majority of outside independent directors citations omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.