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.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case. 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:
James WILLIAMS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The KROGER COMPANY and Local Union No. 957, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16774.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 1, 1966.
Paul H. Tobias, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellants.
J. Mack Swigert, Cincinnati, Ohio, Thomas D. Heekin, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, William F. Sherman, Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel, for Kroger Co.
Robert C. Knee, Dayton, Ohio, for Local Union 957, et al.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and O’SULLIVAN and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment and dismissing a suit brought by some twenty employees against Local Union 957 and the Kroger Company under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (a).
The Kroger Company had warehouses in Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio. Affiliated local unions of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represented employees at each warehouse under separate contracts: Local 957 at the Dayton warehouse and Local 100 at the Cincinnati warehouse.
The controversy arose when Kroger closed the Dayton warehouse and transferred its operations to Cincinnati. Appellants were given the choice of either receiving vacation and severance pay or of being transferred to Cincinnati, where they would lose the seniority rights acquired under Kroger’s contract with Local 957. Appellants elected to be transferred but undertook to preserve their seniority rights under the collective bargaining agreement by filing a grievance with Local 957. This grievance was processed only through the initial steps of the grievance procedure. Both the Local 957 and Local 100 contracts provide for grievance procedure culminating in arbitration.
In their complaint appellants seek a declaratory judgment to the effect that under the Local 957 agreement they have retained seniority rights for purpose of job assignment. They also seek $10,000 in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages.
The collective bargaining agreement between Kroger and Local 957 contains the following provisions:
“Section 54 The parties recognize that from time to time the needs of the business may require changes in operations, opening of facilities, closing of facilities, or transfers of certain operations. When an operation is transferred, jobs at the new location which become available within the first 60 days after the transfer will first be offered to the employees based on seniority. Employees transferred shall be placed at the bottom of the appropriate seniority list at the new location for the purpose of lay-off and rehire. It is further understood and agreed that employees shall experience no break in their Company service as a result of the transfer, and will receive any benefits at the new location to which their total length of service entitles them. It is recognized that such changes may result in disputes regarding seniority rights. If and when such a dispute involves another local union of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, such dispute shall be first considered under Step 3 of the grievance procedure.”
The collective bargaining agreement between Kroger and Local 100 provides as follows: “On lay-offs, job assignments and rehiring the principle of seniority shall apply.”
It appears from the averments of the complaint that Kroger gave advance notice that employees transferred to Cincinnati would go to the bottom of the seniority list for all purposes, including job assignment. The complaint avers as follows:
“At a meeting on or about October 19, 1964, Company officials of a rank lesser than Mr. Korengel, informed some of the Plaintiffs that after the transfer to Cincinnati, plaintiffs would not be assigned to the jobs which become available at Woodlawn as a result of the transfer, that they would lose their jobs and go to the bottom of the seniority list at Woodlawn for all purposes, including job assignment.”
In dismissing the action, the District Judge said:
“About October 12, 1964, plaintiffs were informed by Kroger that Kroger contemplated closing the Willowburn [Dayton] warehouse and transferring its operation there to Woodlawn [Cincinnati] . They were informed on October 19, 1964, that they would lose their seniority rights for all purposes including job assignment if they accepted transfer and they were given the alternative of accepting severance and vacation pay in lieu of transfer.
“In transferring, plaintiffs moved out of the geographical or territorial jurisdiction of Local 957 in Dayton, and into the jurisdiction of Local 100 in Cincinnati. Local 100’s agreement with Kroger provides that any transferees lose their seniority for practically all purposes. Local 100, of which plaintiffs are now members, is the ex-elusive bargaining agent for its members.
“On November 11, 1964, plaintiffs filed a grievance with Local 957. This grievance has never been processed beyond initial steps even though Local 957 officials represented that they were processing it. Plaintiffs contend that their acceptance of the transfer was conditioned upon said grievance and their understanding that their rights would be determined pursuant to the procedure of Local 957. The amended complaint alleges further that the defendants and Local 100 held at least two secret meetings at which they decided not to process the grievance and that plaintiffs should lose their seniority rights.
“The affidavits of Frank Dull, President of Local 957, and Claude Stewart, Business Manager of Local 957, state that they did not process the grievance since they felt it was without merit and that plaintiffs were informed of this in March, 1965. They further stated that they met with Kroger officials prior to and after the grievance was filed in order to work out the problems forming the basis of it. They have no longer attempted to represent plaintiffs since they are now members of Local 100.
“There are also on file the affidavits of R. D. Wuerfel, Personnel Manager of Kroger, and W. R. Bedell, of Kroger’s Labor Relations Department. The former states that plaintiffs were informed of the consequences of the transfer and voluntarily made it and that Kroger has never refused to consider the grievance under the procedure of the Local 100 contract. The latter states that at the grievance meeting in Indianapolis on April 6 and 7, 1965, the dispute forming the basis of this suit was not presented and Kroger has not been requested to discuss it.
“Plaintiffs have also filed a second grievance under the procedure of the Local 100 contract. This grievance has not been resolved but is in the process of consideration.”
We agree with the District Judge that Kroger has followed the procedure required by the above quoted Section 5.4 of its contract with Local 957. Appellants therefore have failed to state a claim for breach of contract against Kroger for which relief can be granted under § 301. There being no showing of bad faith or dishonesty of purpose on the part of the Union, appellants cannot recover against the Union under § 301 for its failure to process a grievance which it found to be without merit. Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 84 S. Ct. 363, 11 L.Ed.2d 370, rehearing denied, 376 U.S. 935, 84 S.Ct. 697, 11 L.Ed.2d 655; Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 73 S.Ct. 681, 97 L.Ed. 1048.
We conclude that the district court was correct in granting summary judgment.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 99