whole-complaint approach. 19 . In light of the foregoing, a strong argument could be made that, even under the claim-by-claim approach, Mississippi would be the sole real party in interest. See, e.g., South Carolina v. LG Display Co., Ltd., No. 3:1l-cv-00729-JFA, 2011 WL 4344074, at *6 (D.S.C. Sept. 14, 2011) (stating that the state would be a real party in interest to its restitution claim even under a claim-by-claim approach because the state has a "a quasi-sovereign interest ... in bringing an action to enforce its laws, disgorge the proceeds of ill-gotten gains, and refund them to its citizens”); South Carolina v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 3:1 l-cv-00731-JFA, 2011 WL 4344079, at *6 (D.S.C. Sept. 14, 2011) (same); Illinois v. AU Optronics Corp., 794 F.Supp.2d 845, 855 (N.D.Ill.2011) (<HOLDING>). The Court, however, need not reach that
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 holding that the state would be the real party in interest with respect to its claim for restitution even under the claimbyclaim approach because it has a quasisovereign interest in seeking recovery on behalf of a wide range of consumers and aiming to deter future antitrust conduct by corporations in the state holding that when the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state the state is the real substantial party in interest and is entitled to invoke its sovereign immunity from suit even though individual officials are nominal defendants 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 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