capable of asserting associational standing. Plaintiffs argue that the Minnesota Supreme Court conclusively settled this issue in State of Minnesota, in which it permitted Blue Cross to proceed against the same Defendants under a theory of associational standing notwithstanding the fact that Blue Cross had no “members.” See State of Minnesota v. Philip Morris, 551 N.W.2d 490, 497-498 (Minn.1996). Although Plaintiffs correctly articulate the holding of State of Minnesota, their argument reflects a misconception of federal jurisdiction. - Simply put, notwithstanding a plaintiffs ability to sue in state court, plaintiffs in this forum must meet Article III standing requirements. See Metropolitan Express Servs., Inc. v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, 23 F.3d 1367, 1369 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, standing lies at the very heart of
holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention holding noneconomic harm satisfies article iii standing requirements holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue recognizing that the government not the relator must have suffered the injury in fact required for article iii standing 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