NOT PRECEDENTIAL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)
2

____________

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.
3

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

 

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.