relator can also satisfy these Article III requirements. Id. (and cases cited therein). Kelly also rejected concerns based on the principles of separation of powers. Id. at 749-53. Relator points out that the only Fifth Circuit opinion dealing with the standing issue, and therefore subject matter jurisdiction, United States ex rel. Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir.1977), found that the FCA “grants informers standing to sue and an award for successful action under the statute.” The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognized that the United States is the real party in interest in an FCA case, even when it elects not to control the suit. See also United States ex rel. Milam v. University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 961 F.2d 46, 48-49 (4th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, observes Relator, the Ohio
holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention holding that because article iii standing is jurisdictional it must be decided before other legal issues recognizing that the government not the relator must have suffered the injury in fact required for article iii standing holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention recognizing that while in a diversity case a federal court may not address the plaintiffs claim unless the plaintiff has standing to sue under state law the plaintiff must also meet article iii standing requirements