1 Plaintiffs bring this Motion to vacate the Court’s January 6, 2009 Order (docket

no. 143) dismissing this action pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 41.1(a). On October 8,

2008, the Court notified Plaintiffs that no proceeding in this action had been docketed for a

period of over one year and ordered them to file a written application within thirty days to avoid

administrative dismissal of the action (docket no. 131). On November 5, 2008, two new

attorneys from the law firm of Woodcock Washburn LLP (the “Woodcock Counsel”) entered

their appearances for Plaintiffs and notified the Court that Plaintiffs intended to proceed with this

action. Based on the Woodcock Counsel’s representations that Plaintiffs intended to prosecute

this matter, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ application pursuant to Local Rule 41.1(a) on November

12, 2008 (docket no 135). On November 13, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion for

Reconsideration of that Order, disputing the factual contentions of Plaintiffs’ application and

arguing that the Court should dismiss the action for lack of prosecution. 

On November 18, 2008, the Woodcock Counsel withdrew from the action. 

Because the sole ground for the Court’s decision to grant Plaintiffs’ application was the

representation that Plaintiffs had secured new counsel and intended to prosecute this matter, the

Court issued an Order dated December 17, 2008 directing Plaintiffs to show cause why this

action should not be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 41.1(a) (docket no. 142). The December

17, 2008 Order warned Plaintiffs that if they failed to show good cause, the action would be

dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs did not respond to the December 17, 2008 Order, and the

Court dismissed the action on January 6, 2009. 

In the instant Motion, Plaintiffs seek to vacate the Court’s January 6, 2009 Order

because Plaintiffs were never served with the Court’s December 17, 2008 Order due to a clerical

error by the Clerk of the Court. However, while Plaintiffs’ current Motion explains why they did

not respond to the Court’s December 17, 2008 Order, it does not address the crux of that Order

and Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration: why this case has remained dormant since

November 2005 and how Plaintiffs intend to proceed with or without counsel. If Plaintiffs wish

to reinstate this action, they may file a renewed motion addressing this issue and showing cause

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN J. KORESKO, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 04-769

:

JEFF BLEIWEIS, et al. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2009, upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ “Motion to

Vacate the Order Dismissing Action” (docket no. 144), and Defendants’ Response (docket no.

145), it is ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

1

Case 2:04-cv-00769-JS Document 146 Filed 07/17/2009 Page 1 of 2
why this matter should be reopened.

 It is FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) If Plaintiffs wish to renew their Motion to Vacate, they may do so within fourteen

(14) days of the date of this Order; and

(2) The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiffs’ attorney of

record. 

BY THE COURT:

 S/ BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN 

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

Case 2:04-cv-00769-JS Document 146 Filed 07/17/2009 Page 2 of 2