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:
Victoria VAN NIEUWENHOVE and Jeanne Van Nieuwenhove, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CUNARD STEAM-SHIP CO., Limited, etc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11130.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Oct. 19, 1954.
George C. Rabens, Isadore I. Feinglass, Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Daniel M. Healy, Walter C. Healy, Chicago, for appellee.
Before MAJOR, FINNEGAN and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.
FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.
In this appeal plaintiffs ask us to reverse an order, entered below, setting aside a jury verdict awarding damages of $5,000 to Victoria Van Nieuwenhove and $1,000 to Jeanne Van Nieuwenhove, respectively. At the close of plaintiffs’ evidence and after all the evidence, defendant, The Cunard Steam-Ship Co., Limited, a foreign corporation, moved for a directed verdict. In his order, setting aside that verdict and entering judgment for the defendant, the trial judge stated that defendant’s motion for a directed verdict should have been granted. We agree.
During a rough sea, Jeanne Van Nieuwenhove and Victoria Van Nieuwenhove sustained injuries when a ladder came out of slots in the bulkhead of their stateroom and fell on Jeanne who was pitched with the ladder and a chair on to Victoria. Prior to this episode, Victoria had moved the same ladder from its position adjacent to the double-decker berths, where she had previously used it to reach her upper berth. Victoria shifted this ladder from bedside to bulkhead at Jeanne’s request; that she, Jeanne, could get out of the lower bed. There were prongs on the ladder top for the purpose of hanging it in slots on the bulkhead. No evidence that the ladder, metal prongs or hooks, clip, or slots were unsafe or defective appears in this record.
Certainly in the state of this record the trial judge was not bound to send plaintiffs’ flimsy case to the jury. Yet he followed allowable practice by reserving his decision under Rule 50, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A., on defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. By taking post-verdict action he saved these parties expense of another trial if we had disagreed with the entry of judgment for the defendant. But this judgment, and trial judge’s action, can be verified by a survey of the evidence since it utterly fails to show that plaintiff were injured by defendant’s negligence. Even when we construe this evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, accept as true all of their evidence, together with all reasonable inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, one conclusion emerges diametrically opposed to plaintiffs’ right to recover. Galloway v. United States, 1943, 319 U.S. 372, 63 S.Ct. 1077, 87 L.Ed. 1458. In our opinion this verdict was not predicated upon substantial evidence.
We think it was correct for the trial judge to deny plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint after verdict and judgment. Their proposed amendment would simply supply opinions of the pleader and his conclusions of law in an effort to bridge the hiatus in the non-existent chain of causation. Such an amendment is neither invited, nor authorized under the liberality manifested by Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 15, 28 U.S.C.A. Apex Smelting Co. v. Burns, 7 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 978, 981.
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.

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