(Appellant trustee challenged the district court’s denial of summary judgment in his favor in an action brought by appellees to dissolve an alleged partnership formed between appellant and appellees to purchase a farm; appellant argued that the district court should have granted summary judgment on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over one of the plaintiffs (because the plaintiff allegedly did not authorize the appellees to sue on its behalf) and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action; in affirming, the court ruled that whether the plaintiff authorized the appellee to bring suit on its behalf was an issue of fact not appropriate for summary judgment; the court also ruled that a district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear all types of civil cases; instead of arguing that this was a case the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear, the court found that the appellant was actually arguing that the appellees lacked standing, a totally different concept; because a reasonable person could conclude that a partnership was formed, summary judgment was inappropriate).