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 appellant. 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".

Opinion:
SAVAGE et al. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CENTRAL DIVISION.
No. 10837.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 28, 1944.
Earl C. DeMoss, of Los Angeles, Cal., Ray Dumett, of Seattle, Wash., A. J. O’Connor, and Cantillon & Glover, of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.
No appearance for respondent.
Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners move for leave to file a petition for writ of prohibition restraining the district court from directing the receiver of the petitioner corporation to dispose of certain real estate belonging to it. The petition contends that there was no jurisdiction for the creation of the receivership and, assuming jurisdiction, the receivership was limited to the conservation of the assets- of the petitioning corporation during the period of appeal from a judgment against petitioner Savage.
The petition refers to appeals pending here from the judgment against Savage and from the appointment of the receiver. We have examined the complaint and the judgment thereon and the order appointing the receiver as appearing in the records here on the two appeals. National Fire Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 281 U.S. 331, 336, 50 S.Ct. 288, 74 L.Ed. 881. The complaint is for a receivership not pendente lite but general in character to conserve the assets of the corporation from the mismanagement of the corporation by Savage who allegedly obtained control thereof by a fraudulent breach of trust in the stock of the corporation belonging to the plaintiff filing the complaint below. The judgment establishes the trust and its breach and the order appointing the receiver is for the general administration of the business of the petitioning corporation. Hence the claim of the petition of lack of jurisdiction in the district court to appoint the receiver and the claim that the receivership was confined to the conservation of assets pending appeal, making action of the court or the receiver otherwise than in such conservation beyond the jurisdiction of the court, are not well founded.
The motion to file the petition is denied.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 3