Task: songer_respond1_1_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 first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "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 first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?
A. local
B. neither local nor national
C. national or multi-national
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A