Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
bands and subjecting them to excessive monitoring and racially-derogatory remarks); Johnson v. Smith, 878 F.Supp. 1150 (N.D.Ill.1995) (cross burned in front yard of African-American family and brick thrown through their window); People Helpers v. City of Richmond, 789 F.Supp. 725 (E.D.Va.1992) (police “bullied” their way into and selectively searched handicapped and African-American plaintiffs’ apartments). While this Court has, as Plaintiffs note, recognized that “violence or physical coercion is not a prerequisite to a claim under § 3617,” Fowler v. Borough of Westville, 97 F.Supp.2d 602 (D.N.J.2000), the conduct complained of must nevertheless be of sufficient magnitude to permit a finding of intimidation, coercion, threats or interference. See, e.g., Babin, 18 F.3d at 347, 348 . That said, the actions allegedly taken by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that actions of defendants in engaging in economic competition did not rise to the level of interference with the rights of plaintiffs and that actions of neighbors while interfering with plaintiffs negotiations were not direct enough to state a claim for violation of  3617
B. 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
C. holding that causes of actions against directors of corporations for breach of fiduciary duty are contract actions
D. holding that rookerfeldman did not bar the plaintiffs federal action where a pennsylvania state court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs petition for review of an agencys decision for failure to comply with the pennsylvania rules of appellate procedure since the extent of the plaintiffs compliance with those rules had no bearing on the merits of the plaintiffs constitutional claims
E. holding that the actions were not actions of public and general applicability but were actions directed principally and primarily at plaintiffs
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.