/ 01-3180 Jayne Shinko v. WILLIAM MIELE, Chief; WILLIAM MIELE, P.C.; MERRILL LYNCH JAYNE SHINKO

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 01-3179 / 01-3180
JAYNE SHINKO,
Appellant No. 01-3179
v.
WILLIAM MIELE, Chief; WILLIAM MIELE, P.C.;
MERRILL LYNCH
________________
JAYNE SHINKO,
Appellant No. 01-3180
v.
WILLIAM MIELE RENTALS
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Dist. Court No. 01-CV-00765 / Dist. Court No. 01-CV-00766)
District Court Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 4, 2002
Before: ALITO, RENDELL, and HALL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed:March 19, 2002 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a District Court Order affirming the Bankruptcy
Court’s dismissal of Appellant’s Involuntary Chapter 7 Petition and imposition of
sanctions against Appellant. Because we write for the parties only, the background of the
case need not be set out.
The Bankruptcy Court properly dismissed the appellant’s involuntary
bankruptcy petitions against The Law Center and Shinko-Miele Rentals because the
appellant’s petitions did not satisfy the statutory requirements and because the petitions

-- 1 of 2 --

were filed in bad faith. The Bankruptcy Court found that the only debt alleged in the
petitions was one alleged by the appellant that she had reason to know was the subject of
a bona fide dispute.
According to the relevant portion of 11 U.S.C. 303(b), "[a]n involuntary
case against a person is commenced by the filing with the bankruptcy court of a petition
under chapter 7 . . . by . . . a holder of a claim against such person that is not . . . the
subject of a bona fide dispute." 11 U.S.C. 303(b) (emphasis added). The Bankruptcy
Court correctly concluded that the alleged claim was clearly the subject of a bona fide
dispute, one that had been seriously contested in many rounds of state court litigation.
Because of this conclusion, the Bankruptcy Court properly dismissed the involuntary
petition under 11 U.S.C. 303(h).
Moreover, the Bankruptcy Court was similarly justified in dismissing the
petition under this Circuit’s case law permitting dismissal when petitions are filed in bad
faith, which was specifically found in this case. See In re Tamecki, 229 F.3d 205 (3d Cir.
2000); In re SGL Carbon Corp., 200 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 1999); In re Lilley, 91 F.3d 491
(3d Cir. 1996).
Finally, the Bankruptcy Court properly exercised its discretion to impose
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under 11 U.S.C. 303(i)(1) and punitive damages
under 11 U.S.C. 303(i)(2).
We have considered all of the appellant’s arguments and see no basis for
reversal. The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --