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:
BRITISH AVIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE AIRLINES, INC., etc., et al., Defendants, Paul G. Quinn and Susan Menut, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 86-5455.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
July 29, 1987.
Sharon L. Wolfe, Cooper, Wolfe & Bolotin, P.A., Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellants.
Diane H. Tutt, Blackwell, Walker, Fascell & Hoehl, Miami, Fla., Thomas J. Whalen, Condon & Forsyth, Timothy J. Lynes, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before HILL, KRAVITCH and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendants-appellants Paul G. Quinn and Susan Menut (hereinafter defendants) were injured in an airplane accident that resulted in several state and federal legal proceedings. In response to these actions, plaintiff-appellee British Aviation Insurance Company (hereinafter BAIC) brought this declaratory judgment action in federal district court to determine its liability as insurer. The district court, on February 13, 1985, ordered all proceedings in this ease stayed. Defendants seek to appeal that stay, though they concede that they do not appeal from the February 13 order, which they contend was merely a preliminary stay. Instead, defendants appeal a March 11, 1985 order by the district court, which defendants claim is the order that finally imposed the stay. We conclude, however, that the March 11 order merely denied defendants’ motion to set aside the February 13 stay order and that the March 11, 1985 order is not an appealable order. We therefore must dismiss defendants’ appeal.
The facts of the 1982 airplane accident are not relevant to this appeal; neither are most of the multitudinous legal maneuverings that have ensued. The central facts relevant to this case are (1) that defendants sued State Airlines, Inc. (State) as the employer of the pilot involved in the crash, and (2) that BAIC provided liability insurance for State and, therefore, had a clear interest in any liability actions involving State.
Eventually, after various suits were ongoing, State filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, an action that triggered an automatic stay of all proceedings against State. See 11 U.S.C.A. sec. 362(a). That first stay was modified so BAIC could proceed with this federal declaratory judgment action. State later converted its Chapter 11 bankruptcy to a straight Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. In its February 13, 1985 order, the district court held that the conversion created a new stay. Defendants would like to contest the validity of this “new” or reinstated stay; we decide, however, that they do not have the right to do so because they have not appealed from the district court's stay order. Moreover, the March 11 order that they do appeal is not an appealable order.
A chronology of events is necessary to understand how this issue developed. On February 11, 1985 BAIC filed a “request for directions of the court” in which BAIC stated that the April, 1984 conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 had stayed all proceedings. BAIC asked whether the parties should proceed given this stay. On February 13, 1985 the district court responded to BAIC’s request for directions by entering the following order: “all proceedings in this case, number 83-6393-CIV-GONZALEZ, be and the same are hereby STAYED pending further order of this court.” On February 20, 1985 defendants filed a “response” to BAIC’s request for instructions in which defendants argued that the conversion did not trigger a new, automatic stay. On March 5,1985 the district court granted BAIC’s motion to file a memorandum in response to defendants’ response. The BAIC “response” was filed that same day, March 5, 1985. On March 11, 1985 the district court entered an order in which the court stated that “this cause has come before the Court upon the objections of defendants Menut and Quinn to the Court’s February 13, 1985 order staying any further proceedings in this action.” The court went on to conclude that “defendants’ objections to the Court’s February 13th order staying further proceedings in this case be and the same are OVERRULED.”
This Chronology makes clear that the February 13,1985 order was a final stay of ° all proceedings in the case and not an interim stay to allow defendants time to respond. The district court therefore treated defendants’ February 20, 1985 “response” as objections to the court’s February 13 order staying proceedings and as a request to set aside the February 13 order. The March 11, 1985 order, therefore, is a denial of defendants’ motion to set aside the stay order of February 13, 1985.
The March 11, 1985 order is not appeal-able as an indefinite stay order appealable as a final order or as an appealable collateral order, or as an appealable interlocutory order. Compare Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Co., 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983), with Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed.2d 1528 (1979) and Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 317 U.S. 188, 63 S.Ct. 163, 87 L.Ed. 176 (1942); Enelow v. New York Life Ins. Co., 293 U.S. 379, 55 S.Ct. 310, 79 L.Ed. 440 (1935).
APPEAL DISMISSED.

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: 0