jurisdiction must be based only on the citizenship of the real parties in interest, ignoring the citizenship of merely nominal or formal parties. Martin Sales & Processing, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Energy, 815 F.Supp. 940, 942 (S.D.W.Va.1993); see also Koehler v. Dodwell, 152 F.3d 304, 308 n. 4 (4th Cir.1998) (dictum) (noting rule in context of a corporation). Parties that are considered nominal are those that have “no personal stake in the outcome of the litigation” and which are “not necessary to 'an ultimate resolution.” Dempse Inc., 747 F.Supp. 332, 339 (S.D.W.Va.1990) (finding state, not investment board, to be real party in interest). Further, the rule has been considered relevant even when the entity in question is a corporation. See. e.g., Dempsey, 88 F.Supp.2d at, 484 (<HOLDING>); Birnbaum v. SL & B Optical Ctrs., Inc., 905
holding that a judgment in a suit in which a trustee was acting individually would not bind him acting in his capacity as trustee holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict holding that corporation that may be liable under state law was not a nominal party and thus its citizenship in same state as plaintiff destroyed diversity jurisdiction holding that the individual defendants were acting as principals andor officers of the corporation and therefore there was no third party present to interfere in the relationship to which their corporation was a party holding that corporation acting as asubstitute trustee was a nominal party