Railway have been considered' — -and rejected — in multiple district court decisions.”); People of California v. Time Warner, Inc., 2008 WL 4291435, *2 (C.D.Cal. Sept. 17, 2008) (“Although the Supreme Court appeared to broadly eliminate the state as a real party in interest whenever the state alone does not inure the benefit, Missouri Railway has been subsequently limited and distinguished.”); People Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 354 F.Supp.2d 660, 673-74 (S.D.W.Va.2005); Abbott Labs., 341 F.Supp.2d at 1063 (“lower courts have not strictly construed the language in Missouri, but instead have focused on the state’s interest, monetary or otherwise, in the context of the entire case”); West State of W. Va. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 747 F.Supp. 332, 338 (S.D.W.Va.1990) (<HOLDING>). This Court has also agreed that the language
recognizing that when a state employee is sued in his official capacity the state is the real party in interest and as a result the eleventh amendment is implicated holding that a rule 25 motion to substitute the real party in interest following a transfer of interest while the litigation is pending is reviewed for abuse of discretion recognizing that a narrow reading of missouri would suggest that the state is the real party in interest for diversity purposes only when the relief sought inures to the benefit of the state alone but noting that cases have only required a real interest pecuniary or otherwise in the outcome of the litigation holding that a  1983 action against a sheriff made the state of alabama a real party in interest 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