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:
Walter MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HYGIENE, Dr. Stuart Keill, Regional Director, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 346, Docket 78-7363.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 8, 1978.
Decided Dec. 11, 1978.
Frederick C. Hayes, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Judith T. Kramer, Asst. Atty. Gem of N. Y., New York City (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of N. Y., New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, SMITH and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Martin was appointed Acting Director of the Manhattan Development Center (MDC) in 1974 by Dr. Stuart Keill, Regional Director of the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene. Martin, who is black, took disability leave from June 1975 to May 1976, and upon his return to work was appointed Chief of Treatment Services at Willowbrook, a position he still holds.
In the fall of 1975, while on leave from his position at the MDC, Martin filed an employment discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., against Keill and the Department of Mental Hygiene. Martin’s complaint stated only that the defendants had discriminated against him on the basis of race between August 1974 and June 1975 by denying him the authority, salary, and privileges commensurate with his position. He also alleged that the discrimination was continuing, and accordingly sought injunctive relief as well as money damages.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint against the Department of Mental Hygiene for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). They also moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5) to dismiss the complaint against Keill on the grounds that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction, and that Keill had never been served with the summons and complaint. Judge Pierce granted these motions, and this appeal followed.
It is well settled in this Circuit that a complaint consisting of nothing more than naked assertions, and setting forth no facts upon which a court could find a violation of the Civil Rights Acts, fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Serzysko v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 461 F.2d 699, 703 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 883, 93 S.Ct. 173, 34 L.Ed.2d 139 (1972). In Avins v. Magnum, 450 F.2d 932 (2d Cir. 1971), for example, we ruled that the plaintiff’s allegation that a law school had failed to hire him because of his political beliefs was wholly conclusory. Similarly, we have held that a mere statement that plaintiff was dismissed from his job because of his race failed to state a claim. Birnbaum v. Trussel, 347 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1966). Since Martin has alleged only that he was denied the perquisites of his position because of his race, his suit falls squarely within the rule established in this line of cases. We affirm Judge Pierce’s order dismissing the complaint against the Department for failure to state a claim, without prejudice to Martin’s right to file an amended complaint.
The parties agree that Dr. Keill, who is no longer an employee of the Department, has never been served with the summons and complaint as Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 requires. Martin contends, however, that Dr. Keill had actual notice of the suit, and that counsel for the defendants refused to provide him with Dr. Keill’s address. He also maintains that because Keill agreed to be represented by the State Attorney General, he has waived the right to demand compliance with Rule 4. We find this argument to be meritless. .
Absent a waiver, Rule 4 mandates that the defendant be served with the summons and complaint personally, or in accordance with one of several prescribed alternatives. A showing that the defendant has had actual notice of the lawsuit is not sufficient to bar a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2). See Di Leo v. Shin Shu, 30 F.R.D. 56 (S.D.N.Y.1961); 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶4.11[1], at 4-115 to 4-116 (2d ed. 1978).
Nor can Martin plaúsibly contend that Dr. Keill waived this requirement and submitted to the jurisdiction of the district court, merely because Keill allowed the Attorney General to raise in that forum the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process. Rule 12(b) was designed to allow a moving party to challenge the court’s jurisdiction over his person or the insufficiency of service of process without incurring the very consequence Martin seeks to impose on Keill here. See Product Promotions, Inc. v. Cousteau, 495 F.2d 483, 490 (5th Cir. 1974); Lynn v. Cohen, 359 F.Supp. 565, 566-67 (S.D.N.Y.1973); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1344 (1969). Since Keill invoked these defenses in timely fashion, and the parties agree that he was never served, Judge Pierce correctly dismissed the complaint against him.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. Martin had previously filed unsuccessful complaints with the State Division of Human Rights and with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He appended to his complaint his EEOC affidavit, which seems to allege that Keill vengefully nullified a permanent civil service grade increase to which he was entitled.
. We note in passing that the trial judge overlooked some recent law in ruling that the Eleventh Amendment bars Martin from suing the State and Dr. Keill (in his official capacity) for damages. In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976), the Supreme Court held that Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974), did not prohibit damage suits against the states for violations of Title VII. The rationale for this conclusion was that since the 14th Amendment is itself a substantive limit on state authority, Congress may, under the enforcement power granted by Section 5, provide for suits against the states to vindicate interests protected by the Amendment — even when damages will be paid directly from the state treasury.
For an enlightening theoretical explication of this concept, which antedates Bitzer, see Tribe, Intergovernmental Immunities in Litigation, Taxation and Regulation: Separation of Powers Issues in Controversies About Federalism, 89 Harv.L.Rev. 682, 683-99 (1976).
. A dismissal for failure of service of process, of course, has no res judicata effect. See Thomas v. Furness, Ltd., 171 F.2d 434 (9th Cir. 1948), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 960, 69 S.Ct. 1522, 93 L.Ed. 1759 (1949).

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