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.”
Look it up in the law dictionaries. Standing is not having the right to make the claim. Failure to state a claim on the other hand is what it says. It means that though you may have jurisdiction to make the claim, which necessarily assumes standing, the claim as a matter of law is not one that can entitle you to any relief.
Let me quote from the foremost treatise on federal procedure, Wright & Miller, in the hopes that actual legal authority might stop this continual display of lack of knowledge of the law.
From Section 1349: ""Rules 12(b)(1) through 12(b)(b) and 12(b)(7) essentially are defenses to the district court's ability to proceed with the action. They are pleas in abatement and do not go to the merits of a claim. [footnotes omitted] Rule 12(b)(6) is the successor of the common law demurrer and the code motion to dismiss and is a method of testing the sufficiency of the statement of the claim for relief." Thus a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not about standing and Judge Robertson's finding that he had jurisdiction is a finding of standing because it cannot have been made without assuming standing, making the Hollister case the only one in which standing has been found.
Here is what Wright & Miller say in the next section after the one just quoted, Section 1350, which is a section dealing with Rule 12(b)(1) motions that are addressed to jurisdiction, and thus to standing:
"A motion to dismiss an action under Federal Rule 12(b)(1)-- a frequently invoked procedure, as the numerous illustrative citations in the note below indicate-- raises the fundamental question whether the federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action before it. [extensive footnote omitted] It always must be remembered that the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and only can adjudicate those cases which fall within Article III of the Constitution and a congressional authorization enacted thereunder. [long list of cases in the footnote and footnote omitted] Thus, as universally recognized by the federal courts, the objection presented by a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction is that the district judge has no authority or competence to hear and decide the case before it. [lengthy footnote omitted]"
Further on in that same section of Wright& Miller about Rule 12(b)(1), it is then specifically stated: "...there are a significant number of cases treating the matter as going to the merits of plaintiff's claim for relief, rather than the district court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction,when ...the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the particular suit before the district court."
So Judge Robertson, in finding specifically that there was a "failure to state a claim" placed his findings under Rule 12(b)(6) and not under Rule 12(b)(1). His finding that he did have jurisdiction because of the statute is a recognition that Congress in a specific statute, the federal interpleader act, had exercised its authority under Article III to create jurisdiction. The plaintiff cannot have been held to have properly invoked jurisdiction of the district court unless it was assumed that he had standing to do so. He did not separately rule on standing but he cannot have found jurisdiction of the subject matter without assuming that standing existed. If he had not made that assumption he could not have dismissed for failure to state a claim as he did without placing the case directly, as to his holding, under Rule 12(b)(6).