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:
CONTINENTAL FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and Clarence L. Caldwell, Appellants, v. J. J. O’LEARY, Deputy Commissioner, Fourteenth Compensation District, Under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, and Employers’ Mutual Casualty Co. of Des Moines, Appellees.
No. 14921.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 27, 1956.
Roy E. Jackson, Torlief P. Ulvestad, Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
Charles P. Moriarty, U. S. Atty., Richard F. Broz, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., Stuart Rothman, Sol., Dept. of Labor, Herbert P. Miller, Ward E. Boote, Attys., Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before ORR and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges, and TOLIN, District Judge.
ORR, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Caldwell was injured on May 30, 1951 while working aboard the S.S. Seafair, a vessel owned and operated by Coastwise Lines, Inc. At the time of the injury the vessel was discharging freight at Seward, Alaska.
The freight being handled by appellant and others consisted of plasterboard packed in rather large bundles, and appellant was attempting to pry one of the bundles into a certain position when the peavy with which he was working slipped. Appellant fell backward and sustained an injury to his back. More than two years thereafter, to wit October 10, 1953, appellant sustained another injury while engaged in unloading cargo. This injury also occurred in Alaska. A claim for the May 30, 1951 injury was made on or about November 13, 1953. A hearing was had in Seattle, Washington, before a Deputy Commissioner residing at that city. An award was made to appellant on February 11, 1955. Being dissatisfied therewith, he filed in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington, Northern Division, a petition for injunction against appellee. On August 18, 1955, the District Court entered an order dismissing the petition on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. From said order an appeal was taken to this court.
At the time of oral argument this court, of its own motion, raised the question of our jurisdiction. Additional briefs have been filed dealing with the question of whether the requirements of 33 U.S.C.A. § 921(b) concern jurisdiction or merely venue.
At the outset we emphasi2;e that it is conceded that the injuries complained of occurred in Alaska, and therefore 33 U.S.C.A. § 921(b) and (d) have application :
“(b) If not in accordance with law, a compensation order may be suspended or set aside, in whole or in part, through injunction proceedings, mandatory or otherwise, brought by any party in interest against the deputy commissioner making the order, and instituted in the Federal district court for the judicial district in which the injury occurred * *
“(d) Proceedings for suspending, setting aside, or enforcing a compensation order, whether rejecting a claim or making an award, shall not be instituted otherwise than as provided in this section and section 918 of this chapter.”
It is conceded, as it must be, that if said section 921, subsections (b) and (d) controls the instant case, and is a jurisdictional statute rather than one dealing with venue, the District Court in which the action was commenced was without jurisdiction to entertain it and this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
We think 33 U.S.C.A. § 921(b) determines wherein jurisdiction lies in the instant case. Bassett v. Massman Const. Co., 8 Cir., 120 F.2d 230, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 648, 62 S.Ct. 92, 86 L.Ed. 520; Independent Pier Co. v. Norton, D.C.E.D.Pa., 47 F.Supp. 1020, 1021. We find no general jurisdiction statute providing for this type of workmen’s compensation suit as are found in the cases dealt with in Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 44 S.Ct. 391, 68 L.Ed. 748, and Hoiness v. United States, 335 U.S. 297, 69 S.Ct. 70, 93 L.Ed. 16. In those cases a general grant of jurisdiction to United States courts over contract and tort actions, etc., preexisted the specific statute in question. Applicable suits under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act come within a particular class. The lack of a prior general grant of jurisdiction over the subject matter together with the literal reading of the statute compel the conclusion that the requirement of § 921 (b) is not merely one of venue but is jurisdictional.
However appellant argues that Congress in its use of the phrase “judicial district” as contained in section 921(b) must have been referring to the judicial districts of the United States, and that a District Court of Alaska is not within a judicial district of the United States, but is an independent court created by an Act of Congress, and hence in seeking relief for a longshoreman injured in Alaska resort must be had to 33 U.S.C.A. § 939, which reads as follows:
“Judicial proceedings under sections 918 and 921 of this title in respect of any injury or death occurring on the high seas shall be instituted in the district court within whose territorial jurisdiction is located the office of the deputy commissioner having jurisdiction in respect of such injury or death”.
We are unable to accept this theory. The injuries complained of did not occur on the high seas. The case of International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U.S. 237, 72 S.Ct. 235, 237, 96 L.Ed. 275, is illustrative. While that case dealt with a provision of the Labor Management Relations Act, the reasoning employed is helpful here.
In the case of International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union v. Juneau Spruce Corp., supra, the Supreme Court of the United States construed the words “ ‘district court of the United States’ ” as used in the Labor Management Relations Act to apply to the district court of Alaska.
We think the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., with which we are here concerned extends its full sweep to Alaska as well as to the states and other territories; in fact, the wording used in the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, viz.: “district court of the United States” and the words used in the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, viz.: “Federal district court for the judicial district” differ significantly. The latter statement lends itself more favorably to a holding that the Alaska courts have jurisdiction.
It is conceded that the district courts of Alaska are federal courts, but it is argued that there are no judicial districts in Alaska in which an injunction proceeding could be filed.
48 U.S.C.A. § 101 establishes a district court for the District of Alaska with the jurisdiction of District Courts of the United States. The courts of Alaska being federal courts, they manifestly fit into the provision of 33 U.S. C.A. § 921(b) requiring the action to be “instituted in the Federal district court”. We do not believe it would be giving the words “judicial district” as used in 33 U.S.C.A. § 921(b) a too loose or too liberal meaning in the special context of legislation to say it includes the District of Alaska.
The order of the District Court dismissing the action is affirmed on the ground that said court had no jurisdiction to entertain the cause.
Affirmed.

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: 1