With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
B: holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention
C: 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
D: holding noneconomic harm satisfies article iii standing requirements
C.