Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(1982). “Mere approval of or acquiescence in the initiatives of a private party” does not constitute state action in the First Amendment context. See id. at 1004-05, 102 S.Ct. 2777; see also Edwards v. Habib, 397 F.2d 687, 691 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (“[I]f, for constitutional purposes, every private right were transformed into governmental action by the mere fact of court enforcement of it, the distinction between private and governmental action would be obliterated.”). Thus, when a court merely enforces obligations explicitly assumed by the parties, there is no state action. See Cohen, 501 U.S. at 669-70, 111 S.Ct. 2513. To hold otherwise would mean that courts could never enforce non-disclosure agreements. See United Egg Producers v. Standard Brands, Inc., 44 F.3d 940, 943 (11th Cir. 1995) . Formal constitutions and bylaws of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that court enforcement of a settlement agreement is not state action for constitutional purposes
B. holding that the plaintiffs lawsuit which was filed despite a general release in the parties settlement agreement constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement
C. holding that because the alleged settlement was never approved by the court under rule 9019 the settlement agreement was unenforceable
D. holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt
E. holding that a district court may order restitution despite a settlement agreement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.