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:
The MILLER-WOHL CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, STATE OF MONTANA, and Tamara L. Buley, Defendants-Appellees. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, California Dep’t of Fair Employment & Housing, Employment Law Center, and Equal Rights Advocates, Inc., Amici Curiae.
No. 81-3333.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 9, 1982.
Decided Aug. 27, 1982.
See also, 9th Cir., 694 F.2d 203.
Charles L. Fine, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellant.
Paul Van Tricht, Helena, Mont., argued, for Com’r of Labor.
Richard R. Buley, Missoula, Mont., argued, for T. L. Buley; Tipp, Hoven, Skjelset & Fizzell, Missoula, Mont., on brief.
Linda Krieger, San Francisco, Cal., for Dept, of Fair Employment.
Karen MacRae Smith, Washington, D.C., for E.E.O.C.
Before WRIGHT, KILKENNY, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:
The Miller-Wohl Company fired Tamara Buley because she missed several days of work. Buley was pregnant. Her pregnancy-related illness caused her absences.
The company’s employment policy permits no sick leave nor leave of absence for any illness during the first year of employment. Regardless what illness or condition causes a new employee’s absence, he or she is discharged for missing work. The company claims it applies this policy consistently.
Two statutes are involved. The Montana Maternity Leave Act (MMLA) proscribes an employer’s termination of a woman’s employment or refusal to grant a reasonable leave of absence because she is pregnant. Mont.Code Ann. § 39-7-203(1), (2). And in Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (Supp. II 1978), declares that pregnant women shall be treated the same as nonpregnant employees similar in their ability or inability to work.
Buley complained to the Montana Commissioner of Labor and Industry who concluded that the discharge violated the MMLA because Miller-Wohl fired her for pregnancy-related absences.
Miller-Wohl sued in district court for declaratory relief. It argues that the MMLA conflicts with the PDA because it requires an employer to treat pregnant employees preferentially. It asserts that Title VII preempts the application of the contrary state provision.
The company’s argument rests on the plain language of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which reads:
The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include .. . pregnancy . . .; and' women affected by pregnancy . . . shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes ... as other persons not [pregnant] but similar in their ability or inability to work ....
42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (Supp. II 1978).
The PDA expressly requires employers to treat pregnant women the same as similarly able nonpregnant persons. Women who are disabled because they are pregnant must be treated the same as women or men who are disabled for any other reason. Because the Montana Act requires Miller-Wohl to treat its pregnant employees differently, the company argues, it violates Title VII.
Not unexpectedly, the Commissioner and Buley, defendants in Miller-Wohl’s declaratory judgment action, and amici curiae, including the EEOC, argue that the MMLA does not fail under Title VII. They contend that, although the company’s policy is facially neutral, it violates Title VII because it exerts a disparate impact based on sex. E.g., Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 97 S.Ct. 2720, 53 L.Ed.2d 786 (1977). See also Abraham v. Graphic Arts International Union, 660 F.2d 811 (D.C.Cir.1981); 29 C.F.R. § 1604.10(c) (1981) (EEOC Guidelines). Because Title VII would require a leave policy to provide a reasonable period for pregnancy, the result achieved by the MMLA, they contend the two statutes do not conflict and both may apply.
The district court agreed and granted summary judgment against Miller-Wohl. It held that the company should provide a reasonable leave period for all first-year employees rather than permit no sick leave for pregnant employees. See 29 C.F.R. § 1604.10 (questions & answers 19, 29, 30) (1981).
However intriguing these arguments, we conclude this court lacks jurisdiction to decide the question. The federal claims contained in Miller-Wohl’s declaratory judgment complaint are defenses to the employee’s state claim. They fail to create the requisite federal question. See, e.g., Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 673, 70 S.Ct. 876, 879, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950); Guinasso v. Pacific First Federal Savings & Loan Association, 656 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, - - -, 102 S.Ct. 1716-17, 72 L.Ed.2d 138 (1982).
The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, is procedural. It provides an additional remedy, but only in cases resting on some independent basis of federal jurisdiction. Alton Box Board Co. v. Esprit De Corp., 682 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1982). Here, Miller-Wohl’s anticipation of a federal defense to a state claim is insufficient to state that independent basis.
Buley’s claim lies entirely within the Montana statute. That Miller-Wohl asserts a preemption defense, in the form of a declaratory judgment complaint, does not change its essential nature as a defense. See Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 112-18, 57 S.Ct. 96, 97-100, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936) (jurisdictional basis must appear in complaint).
Federal law does not impose a remedy by displacing state law, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-7, nor does it define rights, duties, or relationships upon which the state claim depends. See Guinasso, 656 F.2d at 1367 & n.7; cf. Franchise Tax Board of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 679 F.2d 1307, at 1308 n.1 (9th Cir. 1982) (federal question requirement satisfied in state’s action challenging a trust created under a federal statute and naming a fiduciary defined by and subject to duties contained in federal statutes).
All of Miller-Wohl’s defenses that are federal in nature may be raised in its defense in the state courts. Indeed, they all are asserted in the company’s petition for review of the Commissioner’s determination that it violated the MMLA. Every issue pleaded in its federal complaint, as well as several defenses based solely on state law, appear in that complaint.
We vacate the district court’s judgment, 515 F.Supp. 1264. It had no jurisdiction, Similarly, we dismiss this appeal because we have no jurisdiction to decide its merits.
. Miller-Wohl also invokes the equal protection clause. That claim, like its statutory claim, is directed toward an anticipated application of the MMLA.
If any constitutional rights are directly affected, but see Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, 94 S.Ct. 2485, 41 L.Ed.2d 256 (1974); General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976), they are those of male employees, not of Miller-Wohl. The company asserts no federal claim of its own, constitutional or statutory, sufficient to confer jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1343 or § 1331. See Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 8 n.6, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 2506 n.6, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980).

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