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 appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
OFFICIAL AVIATION GUIDE CO., Inc. v. AMERICAN AVIATION ASSOCIATES, Inc., et al.
No. 9222.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
June 17, 1947.
J. Glenn Shehee, Wilfred S. Stone, Hayes & Shehee and Stone, Artman & Bisson, all of Chicago, 111., for appellant.
Clarence J. Loftus, of Chicago, 111., for appellee.
Before EVANS, MAJOR, and MIN-TON, Circuit Judges.
MINTON, Circuit Judge.
This is the second appeal in this case. The facts are set forth in our former opinion, 7 Cir., 150 F.2d 173. The plaintiff sued the defendants for infringement of five copyrights and for unfair competition. The defendants answered denying infringement and also by amended and supplemental Counterclaim alleged that if the plaintiff had any rights under the asserted copyrights which the defendants had infringed, the plaintiff had infringed under like circumstances seven copyrights owned by the defendants. The District Court granted a permanent injunction against the defendants without bond and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim. The defendants appealed from the judgment granting relief on the plaintiff’s complaint and dismissing their counterclaim. We reversed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that there was neither infringement nor unfair competition, and remanded the cause to the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint. We affirmed the action of the District Court in dismissing the counterclaim and awarded costs in this Court, which costs were thereafter taxed at $759.77 in favor of the defendants and are not further questioned.
The defendants subsequently made a motion in which they claimed, first, full costs in resisting the complaint in the District Court; secondly, attorneys’ fees; and third, $7,175 damages for the wrongful entry of s the permanent injunction. The District Court denied the defendants’ motion and entered an order dismissing the complaint and the counterclaim with prejudice, without costs in the District Court and without attorneys’ fees to either party, and denying the defendants’ claim for damages. The defendants have appealed from the court’s order.
The defendants contend that they successful resisted the plaintiff’s suit in the District Court and that their counterclaim was, as the defendants designated it, a “contingent counterclaim” to he allowed only in the event the plaintiff was held to have rights under the asserted copyrights that were infringed. But for the counterclaim, there is no question but that the defendants would have been entitled to full costs. The governing statute reads as follows: “Costs; attorney’s fees. In all actions, suits, or proceedings under this title * * * full costs shall be allowed, and the court may award to the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” 17 U.S.C.A. § 40.
In short, full costs arc mandatory in favor of the successful or prevailing party. Does the fact that the defendants filed a counterclaim which was dismissed change the situation any? We think not. The plaintiff lost the lawsuit, and the defendants were the prevailing party. The counterclaim of the defendants, which was claiming the same kind of rights as the plaintiff was asserting, was bound to fail when the defendants defeated the plaintiff’s complaint. The defendants’ counterclaim was merely an instrumentality of defense and was asserted only to ward off the assault of the plaintiff. It was an alternative defense. It was a shield and not a sword. The color and substance of the suit litigated in the District Court were given entirely by the plaintiff’s complaint. Since the defendants successfully defended in the District Court, we think the provisions of the above statute entitle the defendants to an award of full costs in that court. Since the defendants were the successful or prevailing party, the District Court had no discretion as to the ordinary costs under the said statute which, as we have said, is mandatory in favor of- the prevailing party.
The same provision of this statute that we think is mandatory as to ordinary costs is wholly discretionary- as to extraordinary costs of attorneys’ fees. The instant case was hard fought and prosecuted in good faith, and it presented a complex problem in law. There were no further facts or circumstances which would indicate that the court had abused its discretion in denying attorneys’ fees. We could reverse, in an appealable case, only for an abuse of discretion in allowing or not allowing attorneys’ fees. Advertisers Exchange v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 144 F.2d 907, 909; Buck v. Bilkie, 9 Cir., 63 F.2d 447; Marks v. Leo Feist, Inc., 2 Cir., 8 F.2d 460, 461.
The defendants’ claim for damages, which they asserted the right to have the District Court settle at the same time it was passing upon the costs and attorneys' fees, relies upon the following statute of Illinois: “In all cases where an injunction is dissolved by any court of chancery in this state, the court, after dissolving such injunction, and before finally disposing of the suit, upon the party claiming damages by reason of such injunction suggesting, in writing, the nature and amount thereof, shall hear evidence and assess such damages as the nature of the’case may require, and to equity appertain, to the party damnified by such injunction, and may award execution to collect the same: Provided, a failure so to assess damages shall not operate as a bar to an action upon the injunction bond.” lll.Rev.Stat.1945, Chap. 69, Sec.12.
This is a remedial statute the terms of which govern the procedure in the State courts. Since it is a remedial statute of the procedure in the courts of Illinois, it can have no force and effect in the Federal courts. Procedure in the Federal'courts is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The H F G Co. v. Pioneer Publishing Co. et al., 7 Cir. 1947, 162 F.2d 536. Even if the statute were effective in the Federal courts, it would not be applicable here to a'case of a- permanent injunction, as the courts of Illinois have held that this statute is applicable only' to the dissolution of temporary injunctions. R. M. C. Corporation v. Genco, Inc., 330 Ill.App. 192, 200, 71 N.E.2d 189, 193.
Since we are of the opinion that 17 U.S. C.A. § 40 is mandatory in favor of the prevailing party as to ordinary costs incurred in defending the plaintiff’s suit, the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to allow full costs to the defendants for successful resisting the plaintiff’s suit in the District Court. In other respects, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with costs to the appellants in this Court.
As to who is the prevailing party, we find no Federal authorities. But see Cheeketts v. Collings, 78 Utah 93, 1 P 2d 950, 75 A.L.R. 1393.

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

Choices:

Answer: 99