With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. at 9-10. Alternatively, DES also argues that Mr. Richards has failed to satisfy the necessary legal elements of a claim under the Massachusetts unfair trade practices law. Id. at 21 n. 8; Reply Br. 10, ECF No. 39. Before reaching any of these arguments, it is the Court’s view that Mr. Richards does not have standing to pursue claims under Massachusetts law. Because standing issues go to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, they can and should be raised sua sponte. Cent. States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC, 433 F.3d 181, 198 (2d Cir.2005) (citations omitted). They must also be decided before any other legal issue. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Article III, Section 2 of the U.S.

A: holding that because article iii standing is jurisdictional it must be decided before other legal issues
B: holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention
C: holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention
D: holding that federal courts may not consider other issues before resolving standing an article iii jurisdictional matter
A.