Task: songer_genresp1

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.
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 is to determine the nature of the first listed respondent.

NICHOLS, Associate Judge:
This appeal presents the question whether a suit in admiralty, brought in a United States District Court on behalf of a longshoreman injured on board a vessel unloading at New Orleans, must be dismissed on motion under Louisiana Civil Code, Art. 2315, because counsel failed to move to substitute a living person within one year of the original plaintiff’s death. Our answer is in the negative and, accordingly, we reverse.
The injury occurred May 5, 1970. Plaintiff slipped and strained his back, allegedly because of spillage from cargo, making the cargo hold where he worked “unseaworthy.” On March 26, 1971, he sued. On March 15, 1972, he died. Plaintiff originally had sued Strachan Shipping Co., a stevedoring firm and his employer, but later he joined the shipowner also. A pre-trial order of March 2, 1973, states plaintiff would move to substitute a survivor for the deceased, but this has not been done. Strachan on October 9, 1973, moved to dismiss the suit, with prejudice, because of failure to make a proper substitution of parties within one year of death. Allowance of this motion terminated the preparations for trial and precipitated this appeal.
Strachan and the District Judge relied almost wholly on McManus v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Co., 275 F.Supp. 361 (E.D.La.1967). The facts in that case were virtually identical to those at bar. We may turn to this published opinion as a fuller statement of the reasoning of the District Judge herein, reasoning he has adopted as his own.
This reasoning is founded on The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199, 7 S.Ct. 140, 30 L.Ed. 358 (1886), and the Article of the Louisiana Civil Code, 2315, above mentioned. According to the former, as construed in McManus, it is only through the adoption of a state death act, in this case Art. 2315, that the failure of the maritime law to provide for “survival or wrongful death actions” is supplied, in cases outside Federal statutes such as the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 688), and the Death on the High Seas Act (46 U.S.C. §§ 761-768). This phraseology covers both actions for pain and suffering of the deceased while alive, and actions for injury to survivors by wrongful death strictly so-called. See infra. Turning therefore to state death acts, as the court must, “they must be accepted on their face and with whatever limitations are inherent in the right as granted by the state act.” McManus, supra, 275 F.Supp. at 363. Here, the state act, Art. 2315, required as a matter of substance, not mere procedure, that the substitution of the survivor in all cases must be effected within one year of death.
But this thinking was founded not on rock but on sand. Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970), overrules The Harrisburg, supra, and all its progeny; Federal maritime law, even if judge made, now can operate to award damages for wrongful death or survivor-ship directly. No resort to state law is necessary and thus the restrictions the state had imposed on the survivors cease to be relevant. The structure of reasoning in McManus falls like a house of cards and the reasoning below falls with it.
This court has already treated claims for a decedent’s pain and suffering, before death, as having the same Moragne standing as a claim for wrongful death strictly so-called. Dennis v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp., 453 F.2d 137 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 948, 93 S.Ct. 286, 34 L.Ed.2d 218 (1972). Aec., Greene v. Vantage Steamship Corp., 466 F.2d 159 (4th Cir. 1972).
In Moragne, the Court by dictum speculates 398 U.S. at 406, 90 S.Ct. 1772, that where state statutes of limitations are now deprived of effect, and no Federal provision applies, the doctrine of laches may be the answer. The plaintiff has apparently not been outstandingly diligent here, and on remand, perhaps should justify the time expended with no move made to substitute a living plaintiff. Under F.R.C.P. 25(a), perhaps the failure to substitute can continue indefinitely until the adversary party files a formal suggestion of death. We need not decide that now.
The Distict Judges’ expertise in Louisiana law we assume, and since they say, as they do, that Art. 2315 is substantive, not procedural, it does not clash with Rule 25(a). What would happen in the event of such a clash is a moot question we need not consider, and many of the contentions of the parties can be passed over in silence accordingly. Art. 2315 is a rule of substantive law that a decedent’s own cause of action, and the causes of others for his wrongful death, survive if and only if another is substituted within one year of death, in case of a suit originally brought by the decedent himself. Such a limitation, under Moragne and absent Harrisburg, cannot apply to bar recovery for a maritime tort merely because it was committed in Louisiana coastal waters. Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406, 409—410, 74 S.Ct. 202, 98 L.Ed. 143 (1953). The United States Constitution and laws made under it, are supreme within their scope. Art. VI. Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction were placed in the Federal courts by Art. Ill, Sec. 2 of the Constitution as implemented by the Judiciary Act of 1789 (Ch. 20, 1 Stat. 77, Sept. 24, 1789).
Counsel stated to the court below that the death of Roberson was not due to the shipboard accident, and the action was therefore one for personal injury and not wrongful death. The court below disregarded this because Art. 2315, by its terms barred all actions on account of wrong to a decedent unless proper timely substitution was made. Whether or not this was a proper application of the Harrisburg doctrine need not detain us long. If it was not, appellant is assuredly not worse off than if it was. If counsel’s statement to the court below was right, the cause of action is technically a “survival” claim. Like one for wrongful death, it did not survive the death of the injured party at common law, and consistently with the Harrisburg, in case of a maritime tort, “survival” necessarily depended on state statutes to the same extent. See, Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573 fn. 2 at 575, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974). If the McManus court correctly applied Harrisburg to a “survival” situation, in logic the Moragne overruling likewise applies.
Accordingly, the decision below is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed respondent?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A