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 "fiduciaries". 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:
Lewis SIMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 76-2195.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 30, 1979.
James F. Clay, Sr., Clay & Clay, Danville, Ky., for plaintiff-appellant.
Ben L. Kessinger, Jr., Harbison, Kessinger, Lisle & Bush, Lexington, Ky., Charles J. Griffin, Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Ronald J. Hein, Jr., Chicago, 111, for defendant-appellee.
Before CELEBREZZE, EIJGEL and KEITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This court held in Simpson v. Whirlpool Corp., 573 F.2d 957 (6th Cir. 1978), that prior resort to an available state agency was not required by 29 U.S.C. § 633(b) as a prerequisite to a federal ADEA action. We relied upon our holding to that effect in Gabriele v. Chrysler Corp., 573 F.2d 949 (6th Cir. 1978), vacated and remanded—U.S. —, 99 S.Ct. 2819, 61 L.Ed.2d 273 (1979), on remand 604 F.2d 996 (6th Cir. 1979). On petition for certiorari in this cause, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S.—, 99 S.Ct. 2066, 60 L.Ed.2d 609 (1979). See—U.S.—, 99 S.Ct. 2819, 61 L.Ed.2d 273 (1979).
Simpson appealed to this court from an order dismissing his ADEA suit on the grounds that he had failed to properly commence available state proceedings to attempt to resolve , his grievance. Simpson contended that he had contacted the appropriate state agency by telephone and had been informed that the agency could not be of service to him. The district court ruled that such telephonic communications could not suffice to commence state proceedings in contemplation of § 633(b).
In Oscar Mayer the Supreme Court stated: “We hold that [§ 633(b)] mandates that a grievant not bring suit in federal court . until he has first resorted to appropriate state administrative proceedings. We also hold, however, that the grievant is not required by [§ 633(b)] to commence the state proceedings within time limits specified by state law.” 441 U.S. at —, 99 S.Ct. at 2070. “Section [633(b)] requires only that the grievant commence state proceedings.” Id. at—, 99 S.Ct. at 2073.
The plaintiff in Oscar Mayer had not commenced any state proceedings before filing his otherwise timely federal action. The Supreme Court held that the appropriate response by the federal court, however, was not to dismiss the federal action but rather was to hold the federal action in abeyance while the plaintiff filed a complaint with the state agency, even though the state complaint appeared to be clearly time-barred. The federal action could be resumed upon the dismissal of the state complaint or the passage of sixty days after its filing, whichever came first. Id. at -, 99 S.Ct. 2066. In this regard, the Supreme Court expressly approved the response to a premature federal action outlined in our prior opinion in Gabriele. See id. at—n. 13, 99 S.Ct. 2066, citing 573 F.2d at 956 n. 18.
Upon reconsideration in light of Oscar Mayer we must initially determine whether Kentucky is a so-called “deferral state” in terms of § 633(b), see Gabriele, supra, 573 F.2d at 950 n. 2, since Oscar Mayer only requires prior resort to “appropriate state administrative proceedings.” The requirements for being a “deferral state” are twofold: 1) the state must have a law prohibiting age discrimination in employment, and 2) there must be a state agency authorized to seek relief for individuals suffering age discrimination. Eklund v. Lubrizol Corp., 529 F.2d 247, 248-49 (6th Cir. 1976) (Ohio is not a deferral state); Rucker v. Great Scott Supermarkets, 528 F.2d 393, 394 & n. 3 (6th Cir. 1976) (Michigan is a deferral state);
Kentucky meets both of these requirements. K.R.S. § 344.040 expressly outlaws discrimination in employment on the basis of, inter alia, age. The Kentucky Commission on Human Rights, created by K.R.S. § 344.150, is empowered “to receive, initiate, investigate, seek to conciliate, hold hearings on, and pass upon complaints alleging violations of” the Kentucky civil rights laws, including § 344.040. K.R.S. § 344.190(8). See generally, K.R.S. §§ 344.—180-270. Cf. Mitchell v. Mid-Continent Spring Co., 466 F.2d 24, 25-26 (6th Cir. 1972), cert. den. 410 U.S. 928, 93 S.Ct. 1363, 35 L.Ed.2d 589 (1973), after remand 583 F.2d 275 (6th Cir. 1978) (Kentucky Commission on Human Rights is appropriate state agency for Title VII deferral).
Kentucky being a “deferral state,” under Oscar Mayer Simpson was required to resort to the state agency before filing this ADEA suit. As noted in Gabriele on remand, we must retreat from our earlier broader holding that commencing state proceedings was not required at all. 604 F.2d at 996. We agree with the district court that, on the peculiar facts of this case, Simpson’s telephonic communication was ineffective in commencing state proceedings.
This case is thus legally indistinguishable from Oscar Mayer. The appropriate response by the district court is to hold this action in abeyance while Simpson files a written complaint with the state agency. The federal action can be resumed, if necessary, upon dismissal of the state complaint or the passage of sixty days after its filing, whichever occurs first.
The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs taxed to defendant.

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

Choices:

Answer: 1