13389477.7 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

John J. Koresko, V and

PennMont Benefit Services, Inc., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

Jeff Bleiweis, 

Raymond Ankner, 

CJA and Associates, Inc., and 

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, 

 Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 04-cv-769 

[DRAFT] ORDER

 AND NOW, this ____ day of ______________, 2009, upon consideration of the 

plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal and Defendant MetLife Insurance Company 

of Connecticut’s opposition thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. 

 By the Court: 

 ___________________________ 

 Bruce W. Kauffman, U.S.D.J. 
1 

13389477.7 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

John J. Koresko, V and

PennMont Benefit Services, Inc., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

Jeff Bleiweis, 

Raymond Ankner, 

CJA and Associates, Inc., and 

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, 

 Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 04-cv-769 

DEFENDANT METLIFE’S MEMORANDUM OPPOSING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 The Court should deny the plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate The Order of Dismissal 

(“Motion to Vacate”), which Koresko filed on February 20. Koresko has not provided, and 

cannot provide, any legitimate excuse for plaintiffs having ignored this case for so long. 

There is No Valid Excuse for Plaintiffs’ Complete Inaction After MetLife’s November 2008 

Motion Until Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate 

 Koresko has been a lawyer for many years, and is a member of the bar of this 

Court. Indeed, PACER shows 50 cases where he has personally acted as litigation counsel in 

this Court. His Motion to Vacate demonstrates that he knows full well how this Court conducts 

business. 

 It is undisputed that Koresko knew that MetLife filed a motion on November 13, 

2008, (Docket #136) asking this Court to dismiss this case due to plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute 

it. That motion was filed before the withdrawals of either the Trachtman firm or the Woodcock 
2 

13389477.7 

firm. See Docket ##138, 139, 141. Koresko’s failure to respond to that motion is completely 

inexcusable. Regardless of whether he received the Court’s December 17 Order requiring him to 

show cause or the Court January 6 dismissal order, Koresko had to have known that the 

inevitable result of ignoring that November 13 motion would be dismissal of the case. See Local 

Civ. R. 7.1(c) (“In the absence of a timely response, the motion may be granted as uncontested.”) 

Knowing that MetLife’s non-prosecution motion was pending, that he had not responded to it, 

and that several of his lawyers had withdrawn from the case, Koresko should have timely 

responded to MetLife’s motion, or at least requested additional time to respond to the motion. 

Instead, Koresko put his head in the sand, not filing anything, not hiring replacement counsel, 

not seeking any extension, and not checking the docket. 

 The protestations in the affidavit of Koresko’s employee, attorney Jeanne Bonney, 

about having unsuccessfully searched the mail and e-mail for the December 17 Order are 

immaterial and disingenuous. If it is true that the Court did not send her court filings in 

December 2008 and January 2009 for lack of an address for her, then Attorney Bonney 

presumably never received any filings from the Court since she entered her appearance more 

than four years ago, see Docket #89, so there would have been no reason for her to expect to 

suddenly start receiving them in December 2008. It is no excuse for Koresko and Bonney to put 

their heads in the sand and then claim to be shocked by this Court’s January 2009 dismissal of 

the case. 

Plaintiffs Misrepresent the History of Their Lawyers’ Withdrawals

 Plaintiffs’ alleged trials and tribulations with their various lawyers prior to 

November 13, 2008, even if true, could not possibly excuse Koresko’s inaction either before or 

after that date. On that basis alone, the Motion to Vacate should be denied. Moreover, in his 
3 

13389477.7 

attempt to justify his inactivity, Koresko has misrepresented the history of their lawyers’ 

withdrawals from this case. When that history is correctly spelled out, it is even clearer that 

there is no excuse for plaintiffs’ long stretches of inactivity in this case. 

 Koresko states that during the multi-year absence of one of his original lawyers, 

Virginia Miller, many of Ms. Miller’s colleagues at Anderson Kill & Olick left the firm and 

failed to advance this case to trial. However, Koresko does not and cannot explain why he 

countenanced those years of inactivity, particularly after Ms. Miller’s letter to this Court on 

November 22, 2005 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) stating unequivocally that three of her 

colleagues were prepared to continue in the matter during her absence “with no delays or 

extensions” and that these lawyers “will serve as counsel, including trial counsel, if necessary, 

during my absence.” Moreover, Ms. Miller withdrew her appearance in this case on August 14, 

2006, see Docket #129 and two of the three colleagues who took over the case in her absence—

Mark Gottlieb, a partner, and William Pillsbury, one of the two associates—remain with 

Anderson Kill to this day. See Ex. 2. Former Anderson Kill attorney John Ellison was not 

among the three who took over the case; indeed, he never entered an appearance in this case and 

defense counsel had never even heard of him before receiving the Motion to Vacate. 

 Furthermore, in direct contradiction to Koresko’s allegations, the defection of a 

large group of lawyers from Anderson Kill to which plaintiffs apparently refer—a large group, 

including Ellison, left for Reed Smith on February 1, 2008—did not occur until a year and a half

after Anderson Kill & Olick withdrew from representing Koresko on August 14, 2006. See Ex. 

3; Docket #129. Accordingly, contrary to Koresko’s assertion, plaintiffs’ inactivity from late 

2005 until late 2008 cannot be blamed on the departure of Mr. Ellison and some of his colleagues 

from other Anderson Kill & Olick, when they had withdrawn their appearances long before they 
4 

13389477.7 

left Anderson Kill, and when the lawyers who left were not even the ones working for plaintiffs. 

 Koresko’s final unfounded excuse concerns Michael Trachtman. Trachtman is a 

founding partner in the firm of Powell Trachtman Logan Carrle Bowman & Lombardo who 

entered his appearance along with his associate Gregory Star on August 14, 2006, when the 

Anderson Kill attorneys withdrew theirs. See Docket #129. Koresko states that Star left Powell 

Trachtman and “Mr. Trachtman did not wish to act as trial counsel without Mr. Star.”1 Motion 

to Vacate at ¶ 6. However, even after Gregory Star withdrew his appearance on March 30, 2007, 

see Docket #130, and Attorney Trachtman remained in the case representing Koresko for more 

than another year and a half, until November 20, 2008. 2 See Docket #141. Moreover, 

throughout that period, Attorney Trachtman evidently had no problem acting as trial counsel for 

Koresko in substantially similar litigation that Koresko is pursuing against Nationwide Insurance 

Company in Ohio. See S.D. Ohio Nos. 05-cv-1583, 05-cv-1679; 06-cv-66. Besides, if Attorney 

Trachtman didn’t want to act as trial counsel in this case, why was it that Koresko did not 

attempt to replace him with new trial counsel as soon as Gregory Star withdrew? Like his other 

excuses, Koresko’s excuse involving Attorney Trachtman just does not hold water. 

 In addition, Koresko has had one counsel of record who has represented plaintiffs 

throughout the last four years of this litigation: Jeanne Bonney, an attorney in Koresko’s own 

law firm (and the same lawyer whose sworn affidavit accompanies the motion to vacate). See

Docket #89. Plaintiffs do not and cannot explain why Ms. Bonney—nor her boss, Koresko 

 

1

 Even were that true, Koresko cannot explain why Attorney Star did nothing to prosecute 

this case during the period from August 14, 2006 through March 30, 2007. Indeed, 

although Mr. Star’s entry of appearance and withdrawal were separated by almost nine 

months, they bear consecutive docket numbers. See Docket ##129, 130. 

2

 Once again, Koresko can offer no explanation for why the case was not prosecuted 

during this period of a year and eight months. 
5 

13389477.7 

himself—did not step in when plaintiffs’ other counsel had allegedly dropped the ball, even if 

only to seek an extension. 

If this Court Grants the Motion to Vacate, the Court Should Consider the Merits of 

MetLife’s November 13 Motion. 

 As explained above, MetLife believes strongly that the Motion to Vacate should 

be denied. However, if this Court disagrees and decides to grant the motion, MetLife requests 

that the Court then dismiss this case based upon the merits of MetLife’s November 13 motion 

(still undecided), or based upon Koresko’s failure to respond to that motion. See Local Civ. R. 

7.1(c) (“In the absence of a timely response, the motion may be granted as uncontested.”). 

Conclusion

 Koresko has taken every opportunity to delay this case: not filing a complaint 

until forced to do so, repeatedly delaying discovery, failing to prosecute this case after the close 

of discovery, and now the latest three months of inactivity following MetLife’s filing of its 

motion urging dismissal for non-prosecution. At some point, the Court must stop giving 

Koresko yet another “last chance.” That point is now. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: 2/26/09 /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 Life Insurance Co. of Connecticut
13389477.7 

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: 

[Draft] Order 

Defendant MetLife’s Memorandum Opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of 

Dismissal, with exhibits 

Certificate of Service 

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., 

Raymond G. Ankner, and 

Jeffrey I. Bleiweis 

c/o Craig R. Tractenberg, Esq. 

Nixon Peabody LLP 

ctractenberg@nixonpeabody.com 

c/o Reneé F. Bergmann, Esq. 

Nixon Peabody LLP 

rbergmann@nixonpeabody.com 

John K. Koresko, V and PennMont 

Benefit Services 

c/o Jeanne D. Bonney, Esq. 

Koresko & Associates, L.P. 

jbonney@pennmont.com 

Dated: 2/26/09 /s Robert W. Ashbrook Jr. 

 Robert W. Ashbrook, Jr