IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF : CIVIL ACTION LABOR, UNITED STATES : DEPARTMENT OF LABOR : : v. : : JOHN J. KORESKO, V, et al. : No. 09-988 MEMORANDUM McLaughlin, J. May 13, 2015 Defendants John J. Koresko, V, and Jeanne Bonney each filed requests with the Court to revisit the Court’s February 6 Memorandum Opinion (Docket No. 1134) and corresponding March 13 Judgment and Order (Docket No. 1149). Through his counsel, Dilworth Paxson LLP (“Dilworth”), Mr. Koresko filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59 (Docket No. 1168), while Ms. Bonney, acting pro se, submitted a letter to the Court,1 requesting various amendments to the findings of fact and conclusions of law (Docket No. 1182). The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) responded to each separately (Docket Nos. 1179, 1194). For the reasons that follow, Mr. Koresko’s motion is denied in part and
1 The Court does not consider the “Motion of Defendant Jeanne D. Bonney, Esquire, Pro Se for Post-Trial Relief” (Docket No, 1169) because, for the reasons stated in the Court’s April 29, 2015, Order, Ms. Bonney “stated that she neither filed it nor gave anyone the authority to file it on her behalf” (Docket No. 1180).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
ReplyDeleteFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF : CIVIL ACTION
LABOR, UNITED STATES :
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR :
:
v. :
:
JOHN J. KORESKO, V, et al. : No. 09-988
MEMORANDUM
McLaughlin, J. May 13, 2015
Defendants John J. Koresko, V, and Jeanne Bonney each
filed requests with the Court to revisit the Court’s February 6
Memorandum Opinion (Docket No. 1134) and corresponding March 13
Judgment and Order (Docket No. 1149). Through his counsel,
Dilworth Paxson LLP (“Dilworth”), Mr. Koresko filed a motion for
a new trial or, in the alternative, to alter or amend judgment
pursuant to Rule 59 (Docket No. 1168), while Ms. Bonney, acting
pro se, submitted a letter to the Court,1 requesting various
amendments to the findings of fact and conclusions of law
(Docket No. 1182). The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”)
responded to each separately (Docket Nos. 1179, 1194). For the
reasons that follow, Mr. Koresko’s motion is denied in part and
1 The Court does not consider the “Motion of Defendant
Jeanne D. Bonney, Esquire, Pro Se for Post-Trial Relief” (Docket
No, 1169) because, for the reasons stated in the Court’s April
29, 2015, Order, Ms. Bonney “stated that she neither filed it
nor gave anyone the authority to file it on her behalf” (Docket
No. 1180).