EXHIBIT 1



Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that the within Motion to Vacate has been served upon all interested

counsel by regular mail or electronic means on February 20, 2009 to the persons listed below.

Craig Tractenberg, Esquire
Nixon Peabody, LLP

437 Madison Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Renee F. Bergmann, Esquire
Nixon Peabody, LLP
437 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022

Robert Ashbrook, Esquire
Dechert

The Cira Center

2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19104

Diane Siegel Danoff, Esquire
Dechert

The Cira Center

2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19104

John J. Koresko, V, Esquire



EXHIBIT 2


eel Original Message------
From: Brotman, Ellen C.

To: jkoresko@koreskolaw.com
Subject: Koresko v. bleweis
Sent: Feb 11, 2009 3:52 PM

John,

I was looking into this case as we discussed and it appears to have been dismissed on
January 6, 2009. With prejudice.

Am I looking at the wrong case? 04-cv-769 Ellen C. Brotman, Esq.

Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads

123 So. Broad Street

Philadelphia PA 19109

tel: 215-772-7683

fax: 215-731-3683

ebrotman@mmwr.com

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T



of the District Court when pleadings and orders are filed of record. None of the e-mail inboxes
showed receipt of the December 17, 2008 show cause order or the January 6, 2009 order of
dismissal.

6. As part of my duties at the Koresko Law Firm, I review all mail received on a
daily basis. I can confirm that the law firm did not receive copies of these Orders by mail.

7. On February 16, 2009, I contacted the Clerk’s Office and ascertained that Ms.
Amanda Healey, an employee of the Clerk’s office, was the case processing clerk assigned to
this matter. She called me on February 17, 2009, and confirmed to me that she did not send
either the December 17, 2009 or the January 6, 2009 Orders to any of the Plaintiffs or any of the
attorneys who had represented the Plaintiffs. Ms. Healey informed me that she only sent the
Orders to the Defendants’ counsel.

8. I did not receive nor did any attorney or employee of this law firm receive any
information from the Defendants or their counsel prior to February 11, 2009 that the case was

dismissed.

Sworn & Subscribed
Before me, a Notary

2d Jeanne D. Bonney
Public, on February b8, 2009

‘i De Aether

i NOTARIAL SEAL
" MACHELLE FOGEL SULLIVAN, Notary Patic



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John J. Koresko, et al

v CIVIL ACTION
No. 04-769

Jeff Bleiweis, et al

ORDER

And now this, day of , 2009 upon consideration of the

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal dated January 6, 2009 and any response
thereto it is hereby ORDERD that the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed
to place this matter on the active case list.

BY THE COURT:



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John J. Koresko, et al

v CIVIL ACTION
No. 04-769

Jeff Bleiweis, et al

AFFIDAVIT OF JEANNE D. BONNEY, ESQUIRE

SWORN & SUBSCRIBED
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

I, Jeanne D. Bonney, having been duly sworn, depose and say:

1. lam an adult individual and an attorney licensed to practice in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

2. Iam an employee of the Koresko Law Firm, P.C.

3. On February 11, 2009, I received a copy the e-mail sent by Ellen Brotman,
Esquire to John Koresko, Esquire. The e-mail is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Motion to Vacate
the Order of Dismissal.

4. The subject e-mail was the first notice I received of Judge Kaufman’s Order of
January 6, 2009. I immediately utilized PACER access to view the entire docket in the case. I
then discovered that Judge Kaufman had issued a show cause Order on December 17, 2008.

5. I then examined my e-mail inbox for the relevant period as well as the e-mail

inbox for each Koresko Law Firm attorney and/or employee who receives notice from the Clerk



9. It has always been the intent of the Plaintiffs to pursue their claims. The problems
with Anderson Kill & Olick were beyond Plaintiffs’ control. Plaintiffs made every effort to
secure counsel. Plaintiffs are willing to proceed with or without new counsel

10. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court vacate the Order of January 6, 2009 and

permit Plaintiffs to respond or in the alternative, schedule the case for trial.

Respectfully submitted,

John J. Koresko, V, Esquire

Pro Se and on behalf of
PennMont Benefit Services, Inc.
200 West Fourth Street
Bridgeport, Pa. 19405
610-992-2200



“terminated”, she only sent the Orders to the Defendants’ counsel. Attached as Exhibit 2 is the
Affidavit of Jeanne D. Bonney.

4. Plaintiffs had no notice and no opportunity to respond to the Court’s December 17,
2008 Order and did not have notice of the dismissal until February 11, 2009.

5. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the January 6, 2009 Order dismissing this action be
vacated and the Plaintiffs given the opportunity to respond.

6. Plaintiffs had been represented by Virginia Miller, Esquire of Anderson Kill & Olick.
Ms. Miller, a Colonel in the Pennsylvania Air National Guard was called up for active duty and
was deployed to Iraq until November 2008. Other associates and partners at Anderson Kill &
Olick did not advance this matter to trial to the detriment of Plaintiffs. John Ellison, Esquire, the
Philadelphia Managing Partner for Anderson Kill & Olick, was the attorney in the absence of
Colonel Miller who was most familiar with the case. There were other events that led to Mr.
Ellison and approximately half of the attorneys at Anderson Kill & Olick to leave and join the
Reed Smith firm. In light of this and other developments, Anderson Kill & Olick opted to
withdraw and Gregory Star, Esquire of Powell Trachtman entered his appearance. Mr. Star has
since joined Drinker Biddle. Mr. Star could not continue representation due to a conflict.
Powell Trachtman and Mr. Trachtman did not wish to act as trial counsel without Mr. Star.
Plaintiffs have made a very serious effort to secure counsel and currently await the decision of
Ms. Brotman and Montgomery McCracken. In the event Ms. Brotman declines representation,
Plaintiffs will proceed pro se.

8. Discovery is closed and Plaintiffs are willing to proceed to trial on the contract and tort

claims.



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John J. Koresko, et al

v CIVIL ACTION
No. 04-769

Jeff Bleiweis, et al

Motion To Vacate The Order of Dismissal

1, On December 17, 2008 this Court entered an Order requiring Plaintiffs to show cause
within ten (10) days why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule of Civil
Procedure 41.1 (a). On January 6, 2009 the Court entered an Order dismissing the case with
prejudice.

2. Plaintiff was unaware of the December 17, 2008 show cause Order and the January 6,
2009 Order of Dismissal. Plaintiff was informed on February 11, 2009 by Ellen Brotman,
Esquire of the Orders. Ms. Brotman was in the process of reviewing the matter for the purpose
of representation. Attached as Exhibit 1 is correspondence from Ms. Brotman.

3. Jeanne Bonney, Esquire, an employee of Plaintiff's law firm contacted the Clerk of the
District Court on February 16, 2009. Ms. Amanda Healy, an employee of the Clerk’s office, is
the case processing clerk assigned to this matter. She confirmed to Ms. Bonney that she did not
send either the December 17, 2009 or the January 6, 2009 Orders to any of the Plaintiffs or any
of the attorneys who had represented the Plaintiffs. Ms. Healy informed Ms. Bonney that as the

docket did not provide contact information for the Plaintiff and counsel were listed as