actions. 16 . Although the City did not raise this objection in response to Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion for remedial-phase subclass certification, the court notes that the fact that the United States is litigating substantially similar questions as part of its claims against the City does not mean that the United States’ suit is an "other available method!] for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” (See Liability Cert. Order at 16-19.) As the court explained in its Liability Phase Class Certification Order: The Intervenors are private plaintiffs with their own interest in this litigation, and, as such, the Federal Government’s case is "both logically and legally distinct from the private suit.” Jefferson v. Ingersoll Int'l Inc., 195 F.3d 894, 899 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The Federal Government "could dismiss its
recognizing this distinction in case with eeoc intervention recognizing the boggs distinction recognizing this distinction between  2l12 and  4b12 recognizing distinction made by majority recognizing this distinction