Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Requiring Indemnification Before Access to Public Streets and Sidewalks Is Unconstitutional On appeal Plain Dealer also challenges the constitutionality of Section 901.-181(c)(5) of the Lakewood Codified Ordinance requiring that “permittees” indemnify and insure the City as a condition to gaining access to its public streets and sidewalks. We believe this provision also violates the First Amendment. The district court held that since the City is liable under Ohio Revised Code Section 723.01 for the failure to maintain the streets, sidewalks, and publicways, it should not be exposed to additional liability without indemnification by any private commercial use on such City owned property. The district court cites Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc., 2 Ohio St.3d 26, 442 N.E.2d 749 (1982) ; Dickerhoof v. City of Canton, 6 Ohio St.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a claim of sovereign immunity raises a jurisdictional defense
B. holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine
C. holding that the defense of sovereign immunity is not available in the absence of a statute providing immunity to a municipal corporation in a negligence action
D. holding that the sovereign immunity defense may be raised for the first time on appeal
E. holding that the alien tort statute itself is not a waiver of sovereign immunity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.