we noted in Rivera, "there is a limited exception for suits in which the class certification issues are” "logically antecedent to the existence of any Article III issues.” Rivera, 283 F.3d at 319 n. 6 (quoting Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 612, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997)); see also Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 831, 119 S.Ct. 2295, 144 L.Ed.2d 715 (1999) (same). This exception does not apply here, however, for the same reason it was inapplicable in Rivera: "In the instant case, in contrast to Ortiz and Amchem, the standing question would exist whether [the plaintiff] filed h[is] claim alone or as part of a class; class certification did not create the jurisdictional issue.” Rivera, 283 F.3d at 319 n. 6. 3 . Cf. Joint Stock Soc'y, 266 F.3d at 175 (<HOLDING>). 4 . See Joint Stock Soc’y, 266 F.3d at 178
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 holding that constitutional requirements under article iii and prudential requirement that plaintiffs be the proper proponents of the particular legal rights on which they base their suits are distinct aspects of standing inquiry holding that article iii constitutional standing must be addressed before considering lanham act prudential standing holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention