The content of Wiki is a) authority of zero standing in the courts or anywhere else in the law, b) the least reliable source on the Internet since its content is continually altered by participants, often for political reasons. The law that recognizing subject matter jurisdiction is to grant standing to pursue a claim is so basic and well established in every aspect of the law, including literally thousands of cases, that you, frankly, are doing nothing but displaying ignorance. Try this: go find a case where a court found subject matter jurisidiction, and had, as is acknowledged in this case, personal jurisdiction and was a proper court and yet standing was not granted. Good Luck!
Again, that is exactly what Judge Robertson did in this very case. He said his court had subject matter jurisdiction, but said Hollister had failed to state a claim. Failure to state a claim is an element of standing, not jurisdiction. Roberson clearly distinguishes between the two when he accepted jurisdiction but denied standing.
Quoting from the memorandum of dismissal:
“Those counsel have moved to dismiss,asserting both that this Court has no jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(1) and that the plaintiff has stated a claim for which relief cannot be granted (Rule 12(b)(6).
“Plaintiff having invoked both diversity and the federal interpleader statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1355, I do have jurisdiction. Because plaintiff’s only claim invokes the interpleader statute, however, the suit must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.”