In re: Irene Lin

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: FISHER, RENDELL and BARRY, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. Judge: BARRY Authoring.

Case: 15-2106

Document: 003112276391

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/28/2016

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 15-2106
_____________
In re: IRENE H. LIN,
Debtor
JAY J. LIN; JAY J. LIN PA,
Appellants
v.
STEVEN R. NUENER; BARRY SHARER; KEISHA ADKINS;
NEUNER AND VENTURA LLP; SHARER PETREE BROTZ & SNYDER;
JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYX CO.
_____________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Civil No. 3-14-cv-05230)
District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 6, 2016
____________
Before: FISHER, RENDELL and BARRY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: April 28, 2016)

Case: 15-2106

Document: 003112276391

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/28/2016

____________
OPINION*
____________
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Jay J. Lin and his law firm, Jay J. Lin, P.A., appeal the order of the District Court
that dismissed, as untimely, two appeals to it from the Bankruptcy Court, and affirmed
the Bankruptcy Court’s award of $5,000 in fees and expenses as a sanction against Mr.
Lin. We have jurisdiction over the final order of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. §
1291.
Appellants’ “main” brief to us is confusing and, in places, incomprehensible. One
section, however, is clear: the “Statement of the Case”, which fills almost half of that
eleven-page brief, with insults of the worst kind hurled at the Trustee Appellee and the
Trustee’s Counsel, also an appellee. Vitriol aside, the Statement of the Case certainly
appears to have nothing to do with whatever issues Appellants may have been trying, but
utterly failed, to raise, much less to explain. The two-page reply brief does not add a
thing.
That having been said, we understand, albeit from Appellees’ briefs, the issues
supposedly presented by Appellants for review ─ Appellees, after all, have lived through
those issues before both the Bankruptcy and District Courts in this lengthy, convoluted,

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2

Case: 15-2106

Document: 003112276391

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/28/2016

and contentious litigation. And we have done our homework. We have carefully reviewed
the record, seen the close attention given to this litigation by both Courts, and, of course,
reviewed the various opinions, both oral and written, most recently the excellent opinion
of the District Court now before us, an opinion we have considered in light of the
standards of review the District Court was, and we are, required to apply.
We are satisfied, following our review, to conclude, without further ado, that
substantially for the reasons set forth by the District Court in its thorough opinion, we
will affirm the Order of the District Court dismissing as untimely the two appeals to it
from the Bankruptcy Court, and affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s award of sanctions
against Mr. Lin.1

In Point 4 of their brief, the Trustee Appellees invited us to award damages against Mr.
Lin under Fed. R. App. P. 38, and “reserve[d] the right” to file a motion for such relief if,
at the conclusion of briefing, we had not addressed the matter “sua sponte”. (Trustee
Appellees’ Br. at 27). A motion was subsequently filed. We will address the issue of Rule
38 damages there, not here.
1

3