that “[t]his rule may not apply ... when the members act in their official capacity and perform public duties” but noted that here, “all acts are performed in its corporate capacity and are in no sense related to their duties as state officers.” Id. Thus, the holding in Florida State Bd. of Admin. v. Alliance Capital Mgmt., L.P., that FSBA had brought the case “in its official capacity as a state agency carrying out one of its statutory purposes,” does not answer the question whether the FSBA may be a citizen of Florida under the test set out in Moor. No. 02 Civ. 1104, 2003 WL 22719563, at *1-2 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon Cty. Jan. 21, 2003). 31 . State v. Division of Bond Fin. of the Dep’t of Gen. Servs., 278 So.2d 614, 616 (Fla.1973). Accord Alliance Capital Mgmt., 2003 WL 22719563, at *1-2 (<HOLDING>). In addition, the FSBA's Corporate Governance
holding that the state police is a state agency holding that the state board of administration is charged with investing and reinvesting funds of the state retirement system and is clearly an agency as defined by section 1190112 florida statutes holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that ijnterpretations of statutes by bodies charged with their administration are given great weight unless clearly erroneous holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state