of damages against those individuals may have a deterrent effect. In sum, viewing as a whole the nature and effect of the suit, Plaintiff argues that the potential of the suit to impact the-Illinois populace writ large means that (1) Plaintiff is a real party in interest, (2) the Court thus need not look beyond the complaint to determine whether unnamed plaintiffs have a more significant stake in the outcome of the litigation, and (3) the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction under CAFA and should remand the case to state court. See Hunt Int’l, 481 F.Supp. at 74 (remanding an action in which the Attorney General sought injunctive and monetary relief despite the fact that unnamed defrauded residents also stood to benefit from the suit); see also Lann, 167 Ill.Dec. 252, 587 N.E.2d at 524 (<HOLDING>). Defendants raise two arguments in response,
holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not holding that six employees bringing suit under title vii were not in privity with the united states which had brought a previous suit against the same employer because the employees sought a type of relief which the united states had not sought 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 injured consumers for whom the state sought restitution were not real parties in the states parens patriae suit holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state