The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DAVID J. GARSIA,
Civil Action No. 25-12038 (SDW) (AME)
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25-12101 (SDW) (AME)
v.
WHEREAS OPINION
WILLIAM “BILLY” PROCIDA, et al
Defendants.
February 10, 2026
WIGENTON, District Judge.
THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon Defendants 100 Mile Fund LLC,
100 Mile REIT Inc, 100 Mile Renard Totowa LLC, 468 Totowa Owner LLC, Charles Florio,
Andrew Kovar, Mario Procida, Peter Procida, William Procida, Ron Simoncini, Spruce Street
Partners LLC, Dino Tomassetti, Derek Weissman, Stephen Plofker, Bobbi Brown Plofker, and
Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. (collectively, the “100 Mile Defendants”) seeking the dismissal of the
above-captioned actions on the basis of pro se Plaintiff David J. Garsia’s (“Plaintiff”) lack of
Article III standing (D.E. 9), and this Court having reviewed the parties’ submissions; and
WHEREAS on June 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and the United
States Trustee for Region 3 appointed Steven P. Kartzman as the chapter 7 trustee (“Plaintiff’s
Trustee”) of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy estate. See In re David J. Garsia, No. 25-16412 (Bankr. D.N.J.
2025). Six days after filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, on June 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed this instant
action, and a concurrent action in this Court (the “Complaints”) asserting substantively identical
claims against the 100 Mile Defendants. (D.E. 1).
WHEREAS the 100 Mile Defendants seek dismissal of both Complaints, arguing that
Plaintiff lacks standing to assert the claims alleged in his complaints because Plaintiff voluntarily
filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. (D.E. 13). Plaintiff counters that the 100 Mile
Defendants’ standing argument is moot due to the dismissal of the Chapter 7 bankruptcy
proceedings. (D.E. 18).
WHEREAS “[a]bsent Article III standing, a federal court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction to address a plaintiff's claims, and they must be dismissed.” Common Cause of
Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania, 558 F.3d 249, 257 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Taliaferro v. Darby Tp.
Zoning Bd., 458 F.3d 181, 188 (3d Cir. 2006)). Further, for a district court to have jurisdiction over
an action, the plaintiff must have standing at the time of the filing of the complaint. Comité de
Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agrícolas v. Perez, 148 F. Supp. 3d 361, 368 (D.N.J. 2015) (citing
Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v. Aichele, 757 F.3d 347, 360 (3d Cir. 2014)).
WHEREAS in Chapter 7 liquidation, only the Chapter 7 Trustee has standing to prosecute
claims on behalf of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 323(a); In re Truong, 557 B.R. 326, 342 (Bankr. D.N.J.
2016) (citing Cain v. Hyatt, 101 B.R. 440, 442 (E.D.Pa.1989) (“[A]fter appointment of a trustee,
a Chapter 7 debtor no longer has standing to pursue a cause of action which existed at the time the
Chapter 7 petition was filed. Only the trustee, as representative of the estate, has the authority to
prosecute and/or settle such causes of action”)). Here, the conduct alleged in the Complaints
occurred before Plaintiff filed his bankruptcy petition on June 18, 2025. Therefore, these claims
and any damages arising from them are property of the estate. Hence, Plaintiff, as debtor and not
the trustee of the bankruptcy estate, lacks standing to bring such claims. Moreover, the dismissal
of the Chapter 7 bankruptcy case does not cure Plaintiff’s deficient standing as standing must exist
at the time of the filing of the Complaints.
Accordingly, the Complaints are DISMISSED. An appropriate order follows.
/s/ Susan D. Wigenton x
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.
Orig: Clerk
cc: Parties
André M. Espinosa, U.S.M.J.