F.Supp.2d 1045, 1049 (D.Neb.2003) (finding that “[sjince the State defendants are not citizens, they and the plaintiff cannot be citizens of different states” for the purposes of Section 1332); Wilkerson v. Missouri Dep’t of Mental Health, 279 F.Supp.2d 1079, 1080 (E.D.Mo.2003) ("The inclusion of a Missouri state agency as a defendant ... destroys the required diversity of citizenship”). 23 . See Moor, 411 U.S. at 718-19, 93 S.Ct. 1785 (looking to California law to determine the status of a California county for purposes of resolving, under federal law, whether it was a citizen of California for diversity purposes). 24 . Fla. Stat. Ann. § 215.44(1). 25 . Id. 26 . Id. § Corp., No. 04 Civ. 209, at *6 (N.D.Fla. Sept. 19, 2000) (citing Holland v. Watson, 153 Fla. 178, 14 So.2d 200 (1943) (<HOLDING>) and State v. State Bd. of Admin., 157 Fla.
holding that the bsa was empowered to retain separate counsel from the attorney general and was not a traditional executive department notwithstanding the fact that the governor treasurer and state comptroller were the titular heads of the board holding that a states governor and attorney general were not proper defendants when they had no power to enforce the challenged statute recognizing as a matter of law executive privilege for governor holding that the governor erred in considering evidence that was not before the board holding that state attorney general as member of executive department may assert claim of executive privilege