opinion: Ross J. BOYERT, d/b/a The Ross Group, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Laszlo N. TAUBER, Defendant-Appellee, and Julian D. Pars; Consolidated Financial Trust, Defendants.
  No. 91-1428.
  United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
  Argued Oct. 1, 1991.
  Decided Aug. 25, 1992.
  Earl Landers Vickery, Vickery, Kilbride, Gilmore & Vickery, Houston, Tex., argued (Arnold Anderson Vickery, on brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
  Roger Tehan Scully, II, Bethesda, Md., argued (William D. Quarles, Nancy A. Voi-sin, Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, Washington, D.C., on brief), for defendant-appellee.
  Before RUSSELL, Circuit Judge, BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge, and MICHAEL, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
  PER CURIAM:
  In this diversity case governed by Texas law we certified to the Supreme Court of Texas the following questions:
  (a) Whether the doctrine of partial performance permits a broker to maintain an action for a real estate commission where the memorandum evidencing the agreement refers to “outside brokers” but does not provide a complete listing of their names.
  (b) Whether parol evidence may be admitted to identify the broker to whom a commission is owed in an action to recover a real estate commission based on a document signed by the purchaser acknowledging a debt to “outside brokers” but not providing a complete listing of their names.
  The Supreme Court of Texas responded with an opinion that holds:
  Neither parol evidence nor partial performance may be used to identify a broker when the reference in the writing required by the Real Estate Licensing Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6573a, § 20(b) (Vernon Supp.1992), is to outside brokers. Accordingly, both certified questions are answered in the negative.
  Boyert v. Tauber, 834 S.W.2d 60 (S.Ct.Tex. 1992).
  The opinion of the Supreme Court of Texas disposes of the issues in this case. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Laszlo N. Tauber is affirmed.
  We express to the Supreme Court of Texas our appreciation for its acceptance of our certification and its prompt decision on the certified questions.
  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