In re New York, 256 U.S. at 500, 41 S.Ct. 588; Nuclear Eng’g Co., 660 F.2d at 250; SDS West, 640 F.Supp.2d at 1052 (acknowledging that although a minority of courts have divi t as a whole, a court seeking to identify the real party in interest must ask “not whether the state alone will benefit, but whether the state has ‘a substantial stake in the outcome of the case.’ ” SDS West Corp., 640 F.Supp.2d at 1052 (quoting Abbott Labs., 341 F.Supp.2d at 1062). If the State seeks relief that affects the economic well-being of its citizens broadly, then the State is the real party in interest, and the court need not look to unnamed parties to determine if some of the claims asserted also would benefit them. See Kansas ex rel. Stovall v. Home Cable, Inc., 35 F.Supp.2d 783, 785-86 (D.Kan.1998) (<HOLDING>); Hunt Int'l 481 F.Supp. at 74 (holding that
recognizing that section 8227082 of the kansas statutes codifies the lost volume recovery for the sale of goods holding that the fact that one of the remedies sought by the state of kansas is restitution to the allegedly aggrieved kansas consumers does not transform the state of kansas into a citizen for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction holding that for diversity purposes a national bank is  a citizen of  the state of its principal place of business and the state listed in its organizational certificate recognizing that even entry into contract with citizen of state does not necessarily subject party to jurisdiction in state holding the eleventh amendment bars suits in federal court against the state of kansas or one of its agencies