Task: songer_realresp

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.
Your task is to determine whether or not the formally listed respondents in the case are the "real parties." That is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake? (e.g., in some appeals of adverse habeas corpus petition decisions, the respondent is listed as the judge who denied the petition, but the real parties are the prisoner and the warden of the prison) (another example would be "Jones v A 1990 Rolls Royce" where Jones is a drug agent trying to seize a car which was transporting drugs - the real party would be the owner of the car). For cases in which an independent regulatory agency is the listed respondent, the following rule was adopted: If the agency initiated the action to enforce a federal rule or the agency was sued by a litigant contesting an agency action, then the agency was coded as a real party. However, if the agency initially only acted as a forum to settle a dispute between two other litigants, and the agency is only listed as a party because its ruling in that dispute is at issue, then the agency is considered not to be a real party. For example, if a union files an unfair labor practices charge against a corporation, the NLRB hears the dispute and rules for the union, and then the NLRB petitions the court of appeals for enforcement of its ruling in an appeal entitled "NLRB v Widget Manufacturing, INC." the NLRB would be coded as not a real party. Note that under these definitions, trustees are usually "real parties" and parents suing on behalf of their children and a spouse suing on behalf of their injured or dead spouse are also "real parties."

PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court upon the petition of Fotofab Coi’poration (the Company) to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has filed a cross petition for enforcement. The decision and order of the Board are reported at 181 N.L.R.B. No. 105. Reference is made to the published decision for a complete statement of facts.
The Board found that the Company violated §§ 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a) (1), 158(a) (3), by discharging two employees because of their efforts in behalf of a union organizing campaign. We find that there is substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole to support the findings of the Board. Winston Heat Treating, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 422 F.2d 844 (6th Cir.); N.L.R.B. v. Lawson Printers, Inc., 408 F.2d 1004 (6th Cir.); N.L.R.B. v. Challenge-Cook Brothers of Ohio, Inc., 374 F.2d 147 (6th Cir.); N.L.R.B. v. Elias Brothers Big Boy, Inc., 325 F.2d 360, 366 (6th Cir.); N.L.R.B. v. Ford, 170 F.2d 735 (6th Cir.).
One of the witnesses who testified before the trial examiner previously had been convicted of burglary and participation in the theft of an automobile. At the hearing before the Board the credibility of this witness was attacked because of his criminal record and also because of his marital status. The trial examiner credited the testimony of the witness because of his demeanor, stating that “His testimony seemed particularly straight-forward and responsive to the question put to him.” The trial examiner also pointed out that this was a disinterested witness, being at the time of his testimony a self-employed freelance artist enjoying considerable success in his field.
In November 1970 this witness was indicted for first degree murder of the victim of an attempted rape. His trial was set for January 18, 1971.
On November 10 the Company filed a motion with the Board requesting that the Board withdraw from the Court the certified list of the record in this case and that the case be held in abeyance pending the adjudication of the criminal charge against this witness. This motion was denied by the Board.
The Company has filed in this Court a motion to hold the case in abeyance pending adjudication of the pending criminal charges against the witness in question. Upon consideration, the motion is overruled.
Enforcement granted.

Question: Are the formally listed respondents in the case the "real parties", that is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake?
A. both 1st and 2nd listed respondents are real parties (or only one respondent, and that respondent is a real party)
B. the 1st respondent is not a real party
C. the 2nd respondent is not a real party
D. neither the 1st nor the 2nd respondents are real parties
E. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: B