lack of standing because plaintiffs did not allege any specific contract lost on account of race. 921 F.2d at 1205-06; accord Capeletti Brothers, Inc. et al. v. Broward County, 738 F.Supp. 1415, 1417 (S.D.Fla.1990) (plaintiff failed to specify particular project by which it suffered injury), aff'd, 931 F.2d 903 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2871, 115 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1991). AGO also alleges that it has been forced to discriminate in the award of its subcontracts so as to comply with the ordinance, presumably with a loss of profits. Again it fails to cite any specific subcontracts involved. Plaintiff has not alleged specific noneco-nomic harm either. See U.S. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Since AGC has not demonstrated any injury, we
holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to 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 recognizing that standing is an essential component of our appellate jurisdiction and permitting party to appeal only after determining that they had met the requirements of article iii standing holding noneconomic harm satisfies article iii standing requirements holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention