Whether a federal court can rule on the merits of a complaint or counterclaim without first ruling on standing

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Interfood, Inc. (“Interfood-DE” or “DE”) filed a counterclaim defense claiming that a settlement agreement prevented Rice from suing for any harm suffered on or before December 2009. This suit was filed in 2013 by Rice against Interfood-DE for their breaches in 2010 and 2011 of an exclusive territory agreement between Rice and the Interfood Group of which Interfood-DE is a member. Peripheral complaints brought against DE’s directors below are not being pursued here. Rice’s complaint was dismissed [Doc.#38, App a30] for failure to state a claim because a) the directors oe, ; were not.parties to the agreement .and b) the action complained about allegedly occurred before InterfoodDE existed. The court did not mention Rice’s standing nor the 2010-2011 claims against Interfood-DE. Defendants’ Motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim was granted on the court’s interpretation that the actions complained of occurred before 2009. [Doc.# 102, App. a2] The eighth circuit never ruled on “standing” for claims or counterclaims, never addressed Interfood-DE’s 2010-2011 breaches, never said what element of a claim was missing, and did not allow for an amended complaint. ‘The court ruled instead on uncontroverted issues . ~ not-brought before it, such as old breaches by other ‘Group companies not parties here, mentioned only as background. I. Whether a federal court can rule on the merits of a complaint or counterclaim without first ruling on ; standing. II. Whether the court can decide to rule on allegations mentioned in the background section of 1 ™ the complaint, against other companies not parties here, and ignore the complaint before it in COUNT II, _ 937 for example, against defendant Interfood-DE. IIL. Whether the court can rule at a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss level, that defendant is not obligated under the agreement allegedly breached, without having the : issue briefed, and if so, must the court then dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of standing, rather than with prejudice for failure to state a claim. ; IV. Whether a party to a contract under Missouri law has standing to sue for a breach that primarily injures a third-party beneficiary, or must the filing party claim additional specific personal harm? ii