opinion: PER CURIAM.
  This is an action seeking money damages filed in the Eastern District of Michigan by Northwood Apartments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Northwood, a co-partnership that owned an apartment building in Royal Oak, Michigan, alleged that the defendants had denied it federal due process and its equal protection right to free access to the courts in assessing the apartment for real estate taxes. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the action was barred by the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, or on the ground that it must abstain for reasons of comity.
  On Northwood’s appeal, this court reversed and remanded to the district court, holding that the Tax Injunction Act was not a bar and that there was no legal basis to abstain. Northwood Apartments v. Max LaValley et a1, 649 F.2d 401 (6th Cir. 1981).
  On petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court, by order entered December 14, 1981, vacated the judgment of this court and remanded “for further consideration in the light of Fair Assessment in Real Estate Association, Inc. v. McNary, 454 U.S. ---, 102 S.Ct. 177, 70 L.Ed.2d 271 (1981).”
  In McNary the issue was, as stated by the Court, “[wjhether a damages action may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the allegedly unconstitutional administration of a state tax system.” At ---, at 178. The Court held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the Tax Injunction Act presented a bar to the damage action since in any event, under principles of comity, abstention is required.
  It therefore appears that this court erred in holding that abstention is improper and in reversing the district court for dismissing on that basis.
  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of this court reversing the judgment of the district court be and the same is hereby vacated.
  The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
instruction: 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.
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