Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the extent that these arms of the state were citizens, they would unquestionably be diverse from defendants. Thus, one might argue that the fact that they are not citizens at all should not destroy federal juris diction, just as the fact that they are not citizens cannot create it. 22 .See, e.g., World Trade Center Props., L.L.C. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 345 F.3d 154, 161 (2d Cir.2003) abrogated on other grounds in Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 126 S.Ct. 941, 163 L.Ed.2d 797 (2006) ("Defendant Port Authority presents a closer question on jurisdiction because it is a state-created body, thereby raising the possibility that it is a not a "citizen” of any state, the effect of which would be to destroy diversity.”); Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409, 416 (D.C.Cir.1987) ; Chisholm v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the federal district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review the courts denial of a particular application for admission to the district of columbia bar
B. holding that substantive admiralty law applies though suit was filed in federal court under diversity jurisdiction
C. holding that absent dismissal of the district of columbia federal diversity jurisdiction would be lacking in suit against a diverse codefendant
D. holding that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law
E. holding that the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the district of columbia
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.