Task: songer_r_bus

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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (Aetna) appeals from a final order entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa dismissing without prejudice its declaratory judgment action to determine its obligations under a general liability policy it issued to the Jefferson Trust & Savings Bank (Jefferson). Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Jefferson Trust & Sav. Bank, No. 3-92-CV-80009 (S.D.Iowa Mar. 16, 1992) (order). The district court concluded that the issues are controlled by the substantive law of the State of Illinois and that sound discretion dictated the issues be decided in a pending action filed by Jefferson in Illinois state court. Id. at 1. For reversal, Aetna argues that (1) the district court abused its discretion in dismissing its action without prejudice; and (2) the evidence showed that the federal district court in Iowa is the forum which will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the order of the district court.
In September 1988, Jefferson filed suit against James F. Hamilton and Carolyn F. Hamilton in Iowa state court, seeking to recover approximately $150,000.00 on two defaulted promissory notes. On July 31, 1990, the Hamiltons filed counterclaims for breach of contract and negligent and intentional misrepresentation.
Aetna was the commercial general liability insurer of Jefferson. Jefferson gave Aetna a “Notice of Claim” sometime in September 1991. The notice of claim asserted that Jefferson was entitled to a defense under the Aetna liability policy along with indemnity for any sums due and owing by reason of the Hamiltons’ counterclaims. Aetna acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Claim, reserved all its rights under the policy and subsequently agreed to provide Jefferson with a defense of the Hamiltons’ counterclaims.
Thereafter, Jefferson, through its own attorneys, negotiated a settlement of the Ham-iltons’ counterclaims for $152,000.00 and then demanded that Aetna pay the settlement plus $161,000.00 for its attorney fees. Aetna refused to pay, asserting that the settlement was not a covered loss under the policy because it was not a loss caused by an occurrence, i.e., an accident. Aetna further asserted that the money paid in the settlement was a loss which was excluded from coverage under the policy as damage expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.
On December 13, 1991, Aetna filed a declaratory judgment action against Jefferson in Iowa state court, seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not required to indemnify Jefferson for the amount paid in the settlement of the Hamiltons’ counterclaims. The action was removed by Jefferson to the federal district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. On January 7, 1992, Jefferson filed a complaint against Aetna in Illinois state court, seeking damages for Aetna’s allegedly vexatious refusal to pay the settlement amount.
Subsequently, Jefferson filed a motion in federal district court to dismiss or stay the declaratory judgment action, asserting that its subsequently filed Illinois state court action should be allowed to proceed. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice, concluding that the issues should be decided by the Illinois state court. Aetna filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. This appeal followed.
The district court was not required to exercise jurisdiction over the present action if, under the particular circumstances presented to the court, it determined that the action ought not to proceed at this time. Although the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, gives federal courts jurisdiction to entertain actions seeking merely declaratory relief, such jurisdiction is not mandatory. Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491, 494, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 1175, 86 L.Ed. 1620 (1942). Rather, the federal courts’ power to exercise jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions is discretionary. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bonwell, 248 F.2d 862, 865 (8th Cir.1957). Discretionary power, as used within the context of “declaratory judgment actions, refers to the power exercised by the courts to determine questions to which no strict rule of law is applicable, but which, from their nature and circumstances, are controlled by the court’s personal judgment.” Id. at 866.
We have reviewed the record and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.
. The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1