on other grounds by Lapides v. Board of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 535 U.S. 613, 122 S.Ct. 1640, 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002))). If a court determines on the basis of the complaint that the named plaintiff is merely a nominal party, then the court should look past the complaint to determine if to make a State a real party in interest. See Hood ex. rel Mississippi v. Microsoft Corp., 428 F.Supp.2d 537, 542 (S.D.Miss.2006); Alabama ex rel. Galanos v. Star Service & Petroleum Co., Inc., 616 F.Supp. 429, 431 (D.C.Ala.1985); New York ex rel. Abrams v. General Motors Corp., 547 F.Supp. 703, 706 n. 5 (S.D.N.Y.1982). Similarly, advancing a sovereign or quasi-sovereign interest allows a State to sue as parens patriae on behalf of its citizens. See SDS West Corp., 640 F.Supp.2d at 1050 (<HOLDING>). An action brought by a State advances a
holding that a state has a quasisovereign interest in the economic wellbeing of its citizens and in not being denied its rightful status within the federal system holding that a state must articulate a quasisovereign interest in order to have parens patriae standing holding that securing an honest marketplace is a well established quasisovereign interest holding state as parens patriae takes strong interest in care and treatment of children within its borders holding that when a state sues on behalf of its residents without a sovereign or quasisovereign interest it is only a nominal party and thus not the real party in interest