Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the Supreme Court determined in its discretion that the time had come to return the FJD to local control; the Justices then debated alternatives, voted, and issued a directive reorganizing the FJD. This procedure was no different from that which a legislature would follow in like circumstances. In sum, the issuance of the March 26 order was both substantively and procedurally legislative, and accordingly the dis trict court did not err in applying legislative immunity to Justices Zappala, Cappy, and Nigro with respect to claims arising from Gallas’ termination as Executive Administrator. Having reached this conclusion, we must afford quasi-legislative immunity to Sobolevitch, whose role in the reorganization derived from the Supreme Court’s order. See Aitchison, 708 F.2d at 99-100 . Indeed, Gallas’ counsel conceded before the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that city council is entitled to absolute legislative immunity from claim under the age discrimination in employment act
B. holding that individuals acting in a legislative capacity at a regional level are entitled to absolute immunity
C. holding that the burden is on the defendants to establish the existence of absolute legislative immunity
D. holding that a judge was not entitled to absolute immunity for firing an employee
E. holding that borough attorney who was acting in direct assistance of legislative activity was entitled to absolute immunity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.