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.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
CITY LINE CENTER, Inc., et al. v. LOEW’S, Inc., et al.
No. 10036.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Oct 7, 1949.
Decided Nov. 29, 1949.
C. Brewster Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., and Albert M. Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.
Morris Wolf, Philadelphia (Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for Warner Bros. Picture's Distributing Corporation.
Earl G. Harrison, Philadelphia, Pa. (Wm. A. Schnader, Arlin M. Adams, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., ■on'the brief), for Loew’s, Inc., Paramount Film Distributing Corporation, RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, United Artists Corporation, Universal Film Exchanges, Inc., and Columbia Pictures Corporation.
Before McLAUGHLIN and O’CON-NELL, Circuit Judges, and FEE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
In the Court below, appellants filed a bill of complaint seeking a mandatory injunction. They then moved for a preliminary injunction. That motion was regularly ordered for hearing and came on for hearing on the day assigned. At that hearing, the District Judge determined that no testimony should be offered and denied the motion. The only opinion in the case is the oral opinion of the District-Judge in the course of his denial of the motion. No findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed.
It is obvious that appellants were not allowed the hearing contemplated by Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Sims v. Greene, 3 Cir., 161 F.2d 87. As a result, there were no findings as required by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and there are no means of telling on what ground the Trial Judge acted. Apparently it was on the theory that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On this question, no opinion is here expressed.
The order denying appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 9