Hackenberg v. Bozin et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HONORALBE LORI
HACKENBERG,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL BOZIN, BOZIN MEDIA
GROUP, LLC, doing business as Bozin
Media, BOZIN HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendants.
No. 4:25-CV-01024
(Chief Judge Brann)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J ANUARY 20, 2026
On 	June 	6, 	2025, 	Plaintiff, 	the 	Honorable 	Lori 	Hackenburg 	(“Judge
Hackenburg”), filed a one-count complaint against Defendants, Dnaiel Bozin, Bozin
Media Group, LLC, and Bozin Holdings, LLC (collectively “Defendants”).1 Later
that month, Judge Hackenburg filed an amended complaint that added additional
allegations of fact. 2 In July 2025, she also moved for leave to file another amended
complaint, which was granted by the Court.3 This second amended complaint was
also filed in July 2025, and included two counts: false light and defamation.4
1 	Doc. 1.
2 	Doc. 7.
3 	Docs. 13, 14.
4 	Doc. 15.
Case 4:25-cv-01024-MWB Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Presently before the Court are two motions. First, on August 4, 2025, the
Defendants filed a “special” motion to dismiss or for entry of judgment under the
Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (“UPEPA”). 5 Next, on September 23,
2025, the Defendants’ counsel filed a motion to withdraw and for leave to intervene
on a limited basis.6 Both of these motions have been fully briefed and those papers
have been reviewed by the Court.7
The Court has also received an ex parte communication from Mr. Bozin —
who is the sole member of the other two Defendants 8 — that he does not wish to
make part of the official record. In that communication, Mr. Bozin strongly indicated
that he does not wish for his counsel of record to remain as his attorneys. Given that
this coincides with his counsel’s description of a striking breakdown in the attorney-
client relationship, the Court will grant Defendants’ counsel leave to withdraw from
this case. 9 However, while Mr. Bozin is free to represent himself in this litigation —
as will be the case upon the entry of this Order 10 — he may not represent the interests
of the two other corporate Defendants in this case. 11 Therefore, the two corporate
5 	Doc. 16. A previous version of this motion was filed by Bozin, but it was dismissed as moot
by an Order of this Court. See Docs. 11, 14.
6 	Doc. 23.
7 	See Docs. 19-21, 24, 26.
8 	See Doc. 18 ¶¶ 3-4.
9 	See generally Doc. 18. The Court also notes that Plaintiff does not oppose the request to
withdraw. See Doc. 24 ¶ 1.
10 	While Mr. Bozin will be allowed to represent himself pro se going forward, there is nothing
stopping him from finding substitute counsel if he wishes to do so.
11 	See Osborn v. Bank of the U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 830 (1824) (“A corporation, it is true,
can appear only by attorney, while a natural person may appear for himself.”); Simbraw, Inc.
Case 4:25-cv-01024-MWB Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 5

3
defendants will be given thirty days from the entry of this order to obtain substitute
counsel.12
Mr. Bozin’s ex parte communication also vehemently asserts that he is not,
and has never been, represented by his counsel of record and that he has not approved
any filings submitted by counsel.13 This communication, his public statements, and
his attorneys’ admissions about their client’s distrust in them all imply that Mr.
Bozin would wish to strike any filings submitted to the Court by his counsel of
record. Therefore, the Court will deem the special motion to dismiss withdrawn.14
Finally, the Court must address a secondary issue nested within the motion to
withdraw: whether Defendants’ current counsel should be permitted to intervene in
this matter. His counsel argue that they should be allowed to intervene for the sole
purpose of taking actions to recoup their expenses in drafting and filing the special
v. United States, 367 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1966); Kim v. Sharon Hanna Preschool & Acad., No.
11-cv-5797, 2012 WL 6839914, at *4, report and recommendation adopted sub nom., Young
Chul Kim v. Sharon Hanna Preschool & Acad., No. 11-cv-5797, 2013 WL 140094 (D.N.J.
Jan. 9, 2013) (“It is well-settled in the Third Circuit that corporations cannot represent
themselves pro se.”)
12 	If counsel is not found by that date, the Court will enter a judgment of default against the two
corporate plaintiffs. See AlfaModess Logistics, LLC v. Catalent Pharma Sols., LLC, No.
CIV.A. 09-3543, 2013 WL 1795459, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 2013) (“The Third Circuit Court
of Appeals [has] noted that withdrawal would either force the corporate defendant to obtain
licensed counsel or be subject to default judgment”).
13 	These statements are supported by his public postings on the matter where he in one instance
stated that he “never hired these people.” Doc. 23, Ex. 1.
14 	However, if Mr. Bozin wishes to renew the special motion to dismiss or file a fresh motion to
dismiss pro se or with the assistance of substitute counsel, he is permitted to file a motion
following the entry of this Order. He is encouraged to review the special motion and subsequent
briefing to determine if he would like to re-raise any arguments within it. If he files a motion
to renew the special motion, the Court will reconsider it and all previously- filed briefing
related to it.
Case 4:25-cv-01024-MWB Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 5

4
motion and the briefing related it.15 They argue that such intervention is permitted
by Rules 24(a) and 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 16
These intervention arguments are unavailing. First, Defendants’ counsel
clearly has no right to intervene under Rule 24(a) given that their “only interest in
the case [is] recovering fees.” 17 An argument under Rule 24(b) fairs no better. Any
claims that Mr. Bozin’s counsel may have against him related to fees owed for their
representation in this case “present issues of state, not federal[] law.” 18 Allowing
these claims to be brought in this federal proceeding would inject “issues of state
law regarding a fee dispute that has yet to materialize and has only the most
attenuated connection to Plaintiff’s lawsuit.” 19 This means that there would not be
the argued “claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of
law or fact.” 20
As a result, neither scenario that would allow for permissive intervention is
present. 21 Rather than allowing intervention, the “correct course of action” is for
15 	See Doc. 23 ¶¶ 15-16.
16 	See id. ¶¶ 12-13.
17 	Tamberelli v. Alkermes, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-1681, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208549, at *4-5
(M.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2017) (citing Susquenita Sch. Dist. v. G. W. ex rel. A.P., 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 59422, 2012 WL 1268219 (M.D. Pa. 2012)).
18 	Id. at *6.
19 	Id. at *6-7.
20 	FED. R. CIV. P. 24(b)(1)(B).
21 	FED. R. CIV. P. 24(b)(1).
Case 4:25-cv-01024-MWB Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Defendants’ counsel to bring any fee claims in state court.22 Therefore, counsel will
not be permitted to intervene in this matter.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendants’ Special Motion to Dismiss Motion (Doc. 16) is deemed
WITHDRAWN;
2. 	Defendants Counsels’ Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART;
a. 	Defendants’ Counsel is granted leave to withdraw from this
matter;
b. 	Defendants’ Counsel is not permitted to intervene in this matter;
3. 	Defendants Bozin Media Group, LLC and Bozin Holdings, LLC must
find substitute counsel and have that counsel note their appearances
with this Court by February 20, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
22 	Tamberelli, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208549, at *7.
Case 4:25-cv-01024-MWB Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 5 of 5