Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05631/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05631-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GEORGE J. AUSTIN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, ET AL., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 19-cv-05631-YGR 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 19 

Plaintiff George J. Austin filed an application for temporary restraining order with 

equitable relief (Dkt. No. 19) seeking an order restraining defendants Georgetown University, 

Georgetown University Law Center, and an unnamed photographer, and all persons acting on their 

behalf, from: (1) moving forward on collection of student loans; and (2) commercial exploitation 

of Austin without his consent. Austin’s underlying complaint alleges claims for appropriation of 

his likeness for commercial use under California Civil Code section 3344 and invasion of privacy. 

Plaintiff contends that, because he has been harmed by the school’s alleged legal violations, he is 

entitled to relief from his federal Direct Loan obligations as a “borrower defense” to repayment 

under 20 U.S.C. § 1087e(h) and 34 C.F.R. § 685.206(c)(2), (3). The Court, having reviewed the 

application and the pleadings and papers in this matter, and for the reasons stated herein, DENIES

the application without prejudice. 

Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same general standards that 

govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.,

434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg lnt'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 

F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). Preliminary injunctive relief, whether in the form of a 

temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy,” 

Case 4:19-cv-05631-YGR Document 22 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 4
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

that is never awarded as of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-690 (2008) (internal 

citations omitted). In order to obtain such relief, a plaintiff must establish four factors: (1) he is 

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public 

interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Moreover, 

the party seeking such relief must show that he has provided notice to the adverse party or its 

attorney unless the moving party provides: 

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [which] clearly show that 

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before 

the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and 

(B) [certification] in writing [of] any efforts made to give notice and the reasons 

why it should not be required. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; see also Northern District Local Rules 65-1(b).1 

Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements for issuance of a temporary restraining order. 

First, plaintiff’s application suggests that plaintiff has attempted to provide notice to defendants, 

and that he has submitted supporting affidavits regarding notice and irreparable harm. However, 

no such affidavits were filed, and the application does not include any factual details regarding 

notice or irreparable harm. Given that no defendant has appeared, and the docket does not confirm 

that service of summons has been completed, plaintiff has not established that any defendant is 

aware of the instant action at all, including the application for a temporary restraining order. 

Second, the application does not provide evidence to show that plaintiff is likely to succeed 

on the merits, nor that success on the merits would entitle him to the relief of forbearance on his 

student loans. Plaintiff offers no evidence to establish the merits of his claim under California 

Civil Code section 3344. He has not alleged any claim related to repayment of student loans. 

Moreover, the regulations he cites would not, on their face, convert a claim for improper use of 

plaintiff’s likeness into a borrower defense to repayment. See 34 C.F.R. § 685.206(c)(1) (“For 

loans first disbursed prior to July 1, 2017, the borrower may assert a borrower defense . . . 

1

 Plaintiff’s application refers to “Local Rule 231” and references the Eastern District of 

California. Plaintiff is directed to the Local Rules of this District, which may be found online at 

www.cand.uscourts.gov/rules/civil-local-rules/ 

Case 4:19-cv-05631-YGR Document 22 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 4
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

.[defined as] any act or omission of the school attended by the student that relates to the making of 

the loan for enrollment at the school or the provision of educational services for which the loan 

was provided that would give rise to a cause of action against the school under applicable State 

law, and includes one or both of the following: (i) A defense to repayment of amounts owed to the 

Secretary on a Direct Loan, in whole or in part; (ii) A claim to recover amounts previously 

collected by the Secretary on the Direct Loan, in whole or in part.”) (emphasis supplied). Plaintiff 

has not offered facts or authority to establish that his claims relate to the making of the loan or the 

provision of educational services. 

Finally, plaintiff has not offered evidence to show that he is likely to suffer irreparable 

harm in the absence of immediate relief. Plaintiff does not offer facts regarding any present 

commercial exploitation of plaintiff’s image or why such exploitation would result in irreparable 

harm. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974) (“The possibility that adequate 

compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary course of 

litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm.”); L.A. Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. 

Nat'l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir. 1980) (“monetary injury is not normally 

considered irreparable” in the context of a preliminary injunction). 

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based upon the record presently 

before the Court. 

The Court advises plaintiff that the Northern District Court has produced a guide for selfrepresented/pro se litigants called Representing Yourself in Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro Se 

Litigants, which provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of a case, including 

discovery, motions, and trial. It is available electronically online 

(http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook) or in hard copy, free of charge, from the Clerk’s Office. 

The Court also advises plaintiff that assistance is available through the Legal Help Center. 

Parties can make an appointment to speak with an attorney who can provide basic legal 

information and assistance. The Help Center does not see people on a “drop-in” basis and will not 

be able to represent parties in their cases. There is no charge for this service. To make an 

appointment with the Legal Help Center, you may: (1) sign up in person on the appointment book 

Case 4:19-cv-05631-YGR Document 22 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 4
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

outside the Legal Help Center offices at the San Francisco Courthouse (15th Floor, Room 2796) or 

Oakland Courthouse (Room 470S); (2) call 415-782-8982; or (3) email 

federalprobonoproject@sfbar.org. The Help Center’s website is available at 

https://cand.uscourts.gov/legal-help. 

This terminates Docket No. 19. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 3, 2020 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-05631-YGR Document 22 Filed 03/03/20 Page 4 of 4