Task: songer_appel2_7_2

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Your task is to determine the gender of this litigant. Use names to classify the party's sex only if there is little ambiguity (e.g., the sex of "Chris" should be coded as "not ascertained").

PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the decision of the District Court denying an injunction and dismissing an action filed by tenants against a landlord. The landlord instituted an eviction action against a tenant in the Municipal Court of Toledo, Ohio. Plaintiffs-appellants filed this civil rights class action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), contending that the eviction suit in the municipal court violated their constitutional rights to freedom of association.
The District Court held that the filing of the eviction proceeding in the municipal court was not state action under § 1983 and that there was no showing that two or more persons conspired to deprive the tenants of any civil rights. Reference is made to the reported decision of the District Court for a more complete recitation of facts. 386 F.Supp. 1117 (1974).
Upon consideration of briefs and oral arguments, and the entire record, this court concludes that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying an injunction and did not commit reversible error in dismissing the action.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". What is the gender of this litigant?Use names to classify the party's sex only if there is little ambiguity.
A. not ascertained
B. male - indication in opinion (e.g., use of masculine pronoun)
C. male - assumed because of name
D. female - indication in opinion of gender
E. female - assumed because of name
Answer:

Answer: A