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)", specifically "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
In the Matter of P. J. HOLLORAN COMPANY, LAUNDERERS, a corporation, Bankrupt.
ST. CLAIR LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. P. J. HOLLORAN COMPANY, LAUNDERERS, Appellee.
No. 73-1612.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dee. 11, 1973.
Decided Dec. 14, 1973.
Phillip B. Sachs, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
James P. Halloran, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before GIBSON and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and TALBOT SMITH, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Talbot Smith, Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Upon a careful consideration of the record and of the briefs and arguments of the parties, the Court has concluded that the judgment of the District Court, 362 F.Supp. 370, is based on findings of fact that have not been shown to be clearly erroneous as they pertain to the essential elements of the ease. The issues raised are primarily factual, and the District Court’s finding that the debt asserted by St. Clair Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company, Inc., is not provable for an involuntary petition in bankruptcy has not been shown to be clearly erroneous in fact or based upon any misinterpretation of the law. We believe that an opinion would have no precedential value, and the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed without opinion. See Rule 14 of the Rules of this Court.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "other". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?

Choices:
medical clinics, health organizations, nursing homes, medical doctors, medical labs, or other private health care facilities
private attorney or law firm
media - including magazines, newspapers, radio & TV stations and networks, cable TV, news organizations
school - for profit private educational enterprise (including business and trade schools)
housing, car, or durable goods rental or lease
entertainment: amusement parks, race tracks, for profit camps, record companies, movie theaters and producers, ski resorts, hotels, restaurants, etc.
information processing
consulting
security and/or maintenance service
other service (including accounting)
other (including a business pension fund)
unclear

Answer: 9