Austin v. Georgetown University

Background

George J. Austin applied for a temporary restraining order—an emergency court order—against Georgetown University, Georgetown University Law Center, an unnamed photographer, and people acting for them. He asked the court to stop them from pursuing collection of his student loans and from commercially using his likeness without his consent.

Austin’s complaint alleged claims under California Civil Code section 3344 for using his likeness commercially and for invasion of privacy. He argued that the alleged violations entitled him to relief from his federal Direct Loan obligations as a “borrower defense” under federal law and regulations.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a temporary restraining order is evaluated under the same general standards as a preliminary injunction. Austin had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely immediate and irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of equities favored him, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. He also generally had to show that the defendants received notice, unless specific facts demonstrated that immediate harm would occur before they could be heard and he documented his efforts to provide notice.

The court found that Austin had not met these requirements. Although his application suggested that he had tried to notify the defendants and had submitted affidavits about notice and irreparable harm, no such affidavits were filed, and the application contained no factual details about notice or irreparable harm. No defendant had appeared, and the docket did not confirm that service of summons had been completed, so Austin had not established that any defendant knew about the case or the application.

The court also found that Austin had not provided evidence showing that he was likely to succeed on his California Civil Code section 3344 claim. He had not alleged a claim concerning repayment of student loans, and the regulations he cited did not, on their face, turn an alleged improper use of his likeness into a borrower defense. Austin had not provided facts or legal authority showing that his claims related to making the loan or providing educational services.

Finally, the court found no evidence that Austin was likely to suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief. He provided no facts about any current commercial use of his image or why such use would cause harm that could not later be addressed through compensation or other corrective relief.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Austin’s application for a temporary restraining order without prejudice, based on the record then before the court. The order terminated Docket No. 19. The court did not decide the ultimate merits of Austin’s underlying claims.