Kilinc v. PMMUE EDUSERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED d/b/a TETR College of Business…
Ege Kilinc v. PMMUE EDUSERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED d/b/a TETR College of Business a/k/a Tetr, New York; UBI Business School; and Viney Sawhney
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-07931
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ege Kilinc v. PMMUE EDUSERVICES, Judge Torres denied Kilinc’s temporary restraining-order motion and denied his request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.
Ege Kilinc, who filed the motions without a lawyer, and the defendants named in the case.
What happened
In Ege Kilinc v. PMMUE EDUSERVICES Private Limited and the other defendants, Ege Kilinc, representing himself, asked the court for a temporary restraining order and for help finding a free lawyer.
The court denied the temporary restraining-order request because it sought affirmative relief that would change the existing situation, rather than preserve it while the court considered a preliminary injunction.
Judge Analisa Torres also denied Kilinc’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal later, explaining that the case was too early for the court to assess its merits. The clerk was directed to terminate that motion.
The detailed version
- Kilinc v. PMMUE EDUSERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED d/b/a TETR College of Business… · No. 1:25-cv-07931
- Analisa Torres
- Sept. 29, 2025
Background
Ege Kilinc filed the motions while representing himself. He requested a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and asked the court to request pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer without charge.
Temporary Restraining Order
The court explained that a temporary restraining order generally preserves the existing situation until the court can consider the merits of a request for a preliminary injunction. The court found that Kilinc’s requested order would provide affirmative relief and change the existing situation. The court therefore denied Kilinc’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
Request for Counsel
The court considered the factors used to evaluate a request for appointed pro bono counsel, including the apparent merits of the case, efforts to find a lawyer, and the person’s ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. The court stated that it was too early to assess the merits of Kilinc’s action. It therefore denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date his application for the court to request pro bono counsel. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 4.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres denied the temporary restraining-order motion and denied the application for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal later. The opinion did not decide the merits of the underlying action.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.