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:
Inez CHAVEZ, Mary Nora Sanchez, Juanita Jaramillo, Manuel and Virginia Valdez, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF SANTA FE HOUSING AUTHORITY and Emilia M. Martinez, Director of the Santa Fe Housing Authority, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 77-1307.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 25, 1979.
Decided Sept. 24, 1979.
James A. Burke, Las Vegas, N.M., for plaintiff s-appellants.
David R. Sierra, Santa Fe, N.M., for defendants-appellees.
Before McWILLIAMS, DOYLE and McKAY, Circuit Judges.
McKAY, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs brought suit against the City of Santa Fe Housing Authority and its director, Emilia Martinez, alleging that defendants illegally assessed them and similarly situated low income tenants for damage to their apartment units. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleges that such assessment practices violate the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended, regulations promulgated under the Act, and due process of law. Plaintiffs seek review of the trial court’s order, entered pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing their complaint without prejudice. The trial court ruled, without elaboration, that the assessments made by defendants did not implicate property rights to which due process protections apply.
A threshold question is whether the trial court’s order constituted a final judgment. Although no order formally dismissing plaintiffs’ action was entered, under the circumstances of this case that was not required. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs had no cognizable property interest that would engage due process protections. It is clear that plaintiffs could not have amended their complaint to assert a due process claim the court would have found acceptable. The court’s order was therefore final. See Bragg v. Reed, 592 F.2d 1136, 1138 (10th Cir. 1979).
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) order of dismissal, we must accept as true the material factual allegations made by plaintiffs. See, e. g., Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740, 96 S.Ct. 1848, 48 L.Ed.2d 338 (1976); Walker v. Pacific Basin Trading Co., 536 F.2d 344, 346 (10th Cir. 1976). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs have alleged that the Housing Authority made assessments for damages to tenants’ apartment units without any finding of fault on the tenants’ part, without providing notice of the grounds for assessment, and without giving notice of the opportunity to challenge the assessments. Plaintiffs contend that these activities violated procedural due process. It is clear that adequate notice of an opportunity to contest deprivations of property is required by the Constitution. See, e. g., Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 13-15, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978). Less clear is whether plaintiffs possessed property interests that were affected by the alleged procedures.
Property interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment “are not limited by a few rigid, technical forms. Rather, ‘property’ denotes a broad range of interests that are secured by ‘existing rules or understandings.’ ” Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2699, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). The securing “rules or understandings” are not found in the Constitution; they must stem from an independent source, such as state law. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). For a benefit to be a protected interest, the beneficiaries must have a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to its continuance. Id.
In light of the authorities just referred to, we believe the narrow issue before us may be phrased as follows: Do tenants of the Santa Fe Housing Authority have a legitimate claim that they should continue to receive the benefits of low cost housing without unwarranted assessments for damages to their apartment units? We believe that the tenants have such a claim. It is grounded in the standard lease provision allowing damage assessments only when the tenant has been at fault. By including this provision in its standard lease, the Housing Authority has indicated that assessments will be made only for cause. Tenants are thus entitled to expect continued enjoyment of low cost housing benefits without unwarranted assessments. This expectation is sufficient to implicate due process protections. See Note, Procedural Due Process in Government-Subsidized Housing, 86 Harv.L.Rev. 880, 896 (1973).
We express no opinion on the merits of plaintiffs’ due process claims. The merits may be tested in further proceedings. We merely hold that plaintiffs’ complaint should not have been dismissed for failure to state a claim.
. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437-1437j (1976).
. The court in an earlier order dismissed the Housing Authority from the lawsuit, holding it “not subject to liability under Section 1983.” Record, vol. 1, at 81. Although its propriety is doubtful in light of Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), that order was not assigned as error on appeal.
. The defendants concentrate most of their attention on § 1983 jurisdictional concerns. We find their arguments unconvincing. To the extent defendants’ contentions center on Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), they have been undermined by Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Defendants also argue that the allegedly proprietary nature of the governmental activity in this case prevents the Housing Authority’s actions from being conducted under “color of state law” for purposes of § 1983. This argument also fails. The arguably proprietary nature of the governmental function in Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978), did not insulate the municipal utility from a § 1983 complaint. Furthermore, other circuits have found jurisdiction in § 1983 cases involving similar housing authority issues. E. g., Caulder v. Durham Hous. Auth., 433 F.2d 998 (4th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 1003, 91 S.Ct. 1228, 28 L.Ed.2d 539 (1971); Escalera v. New York City Hous. Auth., 425 F.2d 853 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 853, 91 S.Ct. 54, 27 L.Ed.2d 91 (1970).
. Attached to plaintiffs’ initial complaint was a copy of a standard dwelling lease employed by the Santa Fe Housing Authority. The lease provides, in relevant part:
Except for normal wear and tear, Tenant agrees to pay reasonable charges for repair of intentional or negligent damage to the leased premises or project caused by Tenant, his family, or dependents.
Record, vol. 1, at 24.
. Other courts have reached the same conclusion in cases dealing with rent increases, eviction, or repair assessments. E. 'g., Burr v. New Rochelle Mun. Hous. Auth., 479 F.2d 1165 (2d Cir.1973); Caulder v. Durham Hous. Auth., 433 F.2d 998 (4th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 1003, 91 S.Ct. 1228, 28 L.Ed.2d 539 (1971); Escalera v. New York City Hous. Auth., 425 F.2d 853 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 853, 91 S.Ct. 54, 27 L.Ed.2d 91 (1970).

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