IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John J. Koresko, V and
PennMont Benefit Services, Inc.,

Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action No. 04-cv-769
Jeff Bleiweis,
Raymond Ankner,
CJA and Associates, Inc., and

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut,

Defendants.

DEFENDANT METLIFE’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ LOCAL CIVIL RULE 41.1(a) APPLICATION

Late yesterday, a surprising event occurred which provides an additional and
decisive reason for this Court to grant Defendant MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s
(“MetLife’s”) November 13 motion for reconsideration and to deny Plaintiffs’ Local Civil Rule
41.1(a) application.

After 5:00 p.m. yesterday, MetLife received notice through the Court’s E.C.F.
system that the lawyers from the Woodcock Washburn firm had withdrawn their appearances on
behalf of Plaintiffs. See Docket ## 138-39. However, the sole reason Plaintiffs gave for “good
cause” to avoid dismissal of their case under Local Civil Rule 41.1(a) was that they purportedly
had not been “actively represented by counsel in this matter since March 30, 2007, and have only
retained the undersigned counsel, Woodcock Washburn, to represent them in this action within
the last few days.” Docket # 134 (Plaintiffs’ application) at 1. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ sole

alleged basis for reactivating this case has now evaporated.

13318552.4


The entry of the Woodcock Washburn firm was an insufficient reason for
Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this case in the first place, because it ignored the fact that they had
two other law firms already of record in this case, yet they chose not to do anything for the past
three-and-one half years. With the Woodcock Washburn firm now out of the case, there is not
even a purported basis for the continuation of this lawsuit. For that reason, and for the reasons
set forth in detail in the brief accompanying MetLife’s motion for reconsideration (Docket

# 136), this case should be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 19, 2008 s/ Robert W. Ashbrook Jr.
Diane Siegel Danoff
Robert W. Ashbrook, Jr.
Dechert LLP
Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808
telephone 215.994.4000
facsimile 215.994.2222
Attorneys for Defendant MetLife Insurance
Company of Connecticut

13318552. 4 2


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that today that in

Koresko et al. v. Bleiweis et al., E.D. Pa. 04-cv-769
the following documents have been filed electronically and is available for viewing and
downloading from the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system:

Defendant MetLife’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration
and Its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Local Civil Rule 41.1(a) Application

and that service on the following parties was accomplished by the electronic service of a Notice
of Electronic Case Filing to the following parties, who have consented to electronic service:

CJA & Associates, Inc., John J. Koresko, V
Raymond G. Ankner, and
Jeffrey I. Bleiweis c/o Michael G. Tractman
Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle &
c/oCraig R. Tractenberg, Esq. Lombardo, PC
Nixon Peabody LLP mtractman@powelltractman.com

ctractenberg@nixonpeabody.com

c/o Reneé F. Bergmann, Esq.
Nixon Peabody LLP
rbergmann@nixonpeabody.com

Dated: November 19, 2008 s/ Robert W. Ashbrook Jr.
Robert W. Ashbrook, Jr

133185524