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 "natural persons". 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:
ALBANESE v. RICHTER.
No. 9257.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 17, 1947.
Decided May 21, 1947.
Isadore Glauberman, of Jersey City, N. J,, for appellant.
Arthur T. Vanderbilt, of Newark, N. J. (Willard G. Woelper, of Newark, N. J., on the brief), for respondent.
Before O’CONNELL and KALODNER, Circuit Judges, and FOLLMER, District Judge.
O’CONNELL, Circuit Judge.
This appeal poses the question whether an illegitimate child may proceed against his putative father, in a federal court, for invalidation of an instrument alleged to be a fraud on his rights and for the awarding of sums necessary for his education and support.
The allegations of the complaint are substantially as follows: Defendant and Barbara Mary Kelnhofer (hereinafter called Barbara), not married to one another, cohabited on numerous occasions between January, 1941, and January, 1944. As a result of that relationship, Barbara became pregnant in October, 1943. Because defendant threatened to cease supporting her, Barbara on February 18, 1944, executed in New York a formal instrument, under the terms of which she did “admit and covenant” that defendant was not the father of the expected child', and did accept $7500 in satisfaction of all claims “which I may now have, or hereafter claim or claim to have, against the said Hubert Richter, by reason particularly of. my pregnancy, the birth of the expected child or for [sic] its support, education, and maintenance.”
Plaintiff was born on July 20, 1944. He and Barbara are residents of New York; defendant is a resident of New Jersey. Plaintiff asks the court: (1) to declare null and void the instrument signed by Barbara on February 18, 1944; (2) to require defendant to contribute to his support and education, in accordance with Section 120 of the New York Domestic Relations Law, Consol.Laws, c. 14; and (3) to require defendant to contribute to his support and education,' in accordance with Section 9: 16-2, Revised Statutes of New Jersey, N.J. S.A.
The court below granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint; D.C.1946, 67 F.Supp. 771. We reach the same conclusion.
Mere diversity of citizenship and jurisdictional amount, in and of themselves, are not sufficient to give jurisdiction to federal courts. 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1), as interpreted by the courts, has been held consistently not to include suits primarily involving domestic relations. Fontain v. Ravenel, 1854, 17 How. 369, 58 U.S. 369, 15 L.Ed. 80; and see In re Burrus, 1890, 136 U.S. 586, 593, 10 S.Ct. 850, 34 L.Ed. 500, and Williams v. North Carolina, 1945, 325 U.S. 226, 233, 237, 65 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed. 1577, 157 A.L.R. 1366.
Plaintiff urges that “domestic relations” does not include the putative father-illegitimate child relationship. Both New York and New Jersey, however, have indicated that the parens patriae doctrine in those states includes illegitimate children as well. Moreover, we have been unable to find any precedent for a suit based upon diversity of citizenship, in a federal court by an illegitimate child against his putative father.
Our decision that federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain the three causes of action asserted in the complaint renders it unnecessary to consider the merits of the case or other issues raised.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
See Jones v. Janes, 1937, 161 Misc. 660, 663, 292 N.Y.S. 221, 224; Ex parte R.L., ch. 1945, 137 N.J.Eq. 271, 44 A. 2d 396. It should also be noted that the statutes upon which the second and third causes of action are based appear in domestie relations portions of the collected laws of each state, and that the right granted by the New Jersey statute is exactly that enjoyed by legitimate children.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1