exhaustion, that exhaustion would be futile, and that DakotaCare is estopped from asserting failure to exhaust because it sent a letter specifically denying what Dakota-Care construed as an appeal letter. [¶ 11] Finally, defendant contends that Sioux Valley lacks standing to bring an ERISA action. Sioux Valley contends that ERISA does not preclude suit by an entity that has a valid assignment which is au thorized both under DakotaCare’s plan and under South Dakota law. I. Standing. [¶ 12] Standing is a threshold matter that, if absent, prevents this Court from exercising jurisdiction. Arkansas Right to Life State Political Action Comm. v. Butler, 146 F.3d 558, 560 (8th Cir.1998). See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1012-13, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Standing in this case turns on the source of
holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention holding that a court can dismiss a case under forum non conveniens before resolving any other jurisdictional issues holding that federal courts may not consider other issues before resolving standing an article iii jurisdictional matter holding that because article iii standing is jurisdictional it must be decided before other legal issues holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention