and not complete diversity, this Court has jurisdiction by virtue of the unnamed plaintiffs who are real 'parties in interest as to the damages claims. The Supreme Court, Seventh Circuit, and district courts in this and other circuits have taken a different approach to assessing real-party-in-interest questions, pursuant to which courts examine the State’s interest in the action as a whole in deciding real-party-in-interest questions. See Ford Motor Co., 323 U.S. at 463, 65 S.Ct. 3 use there was “absolutely no indication that the Attorney General sought to bring this class suit in order to defeat diversity jurisdiction * * * [t]his court will not disregard the presence of the Attorney General, the only plaintiff presently before the court”); Lann, 167 Ill.Dec. 252, 587 N.E.2d at 524-25 (<HOLDING>). As many courts have held, a State is not
holding that the state was a real party in interest when the attorney general filed suit under the illinois consumer fraud act on behalf of residents who were specifically aggrieved by violations of the act because the attorney general decides whether to bring the litigation and maintains control of it in her role as protector of the public and not as personal representative of the consumers for whom she seeks restitution holding attorney general could not contract on behalf of the state to employ an assistant attorney beyond the attorney generals own term holding in the context of an attorney malpractice suit an insurance company is not vicariously liable for the acts of the attorney it selects to defend the insured while the insurer selected the attorney to defend the insureds and controlled the ultimate decision to settle or defend under the policy there is nothing in the record to indicate the insurer had any control over the details of the litigation as it was being conducted by the the attorney holding that the punitive provisions of the delaware consumer fraud act were not applicable to attorney conduct occurring within the practice of law given the state supreme courts inherent constitutional and statutory authority to discipline members of the state bar noting the lack of consensus in different jurisdictions as to the applicability of state consumer fraud acts to attorney conduct holding that illinoiss consumer fraud act did not apply to the claim that attorneys charged excessive fees for legal services because the attorneyclient relationship was the subject of regulation by the state supreme court and the legislature did not specify that it intended the consumer fraud act to apply to the role of attorneys in relation to their clients