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

S.D. New York

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-07931

StatusUnknown

This text of 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 (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) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED Ege Kilinc, DOC # DATE FILED: 9/29/2025 Plaintiff, -against- 25 Civ. 7931 (AT) PMMUE EDUSERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED d/b/a ORDER TETR College of Business a/k/a Tetr, New York; UBI Business School; and Viney Sawhney, Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: The Court has reviewed the motion for a temporary restraining order filed by Plaintiff pro se, Ege Kilinc. ECF Nos. 5—7, 9. The purpose of a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) “is to preserve an existing situation in status quo until the [C]ourt has an opportunity to pass upon the merits of the demand for a preliminary injunction.” Warner Bros. Inc. v. Dae Rim Trading, Inc., 877 F.2d 1120, 1125 (2d Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Here, Kilinc seeks a temporary restraining order that would provide him with affirmative relief changing the status quo. See ECF Nos. 5-7, 9. Accordingly, Kilinc’s motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. Kiline has also filed an application for the Court to request pro bono counsel. ECF No. 4. The factors to be considered in ruling on a litigant’s request for counsel include the merits of their case, their efforts to obtain a lawyer, and their ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). Of these, the merits command “the most attention.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. Because it is too early in the proceedings for the Court to assess the merits of this action, Kilinc’s application for the Court to request pro bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 4. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 29, 2025 New York, New York _ ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED Ege Kilinc, DOC # DATE FILED: 9/29/2025 Plaintiff, -against- 25 Civ. 7931 (AT) PMMUE EDUSERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED d/b/a ORDER TETR College of Business a/k/a Tetr, New York; UBI Business School; and Viney Sawhney, Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: The Court has reviewed the motion for a temporary restraining order filed by Plaintiff pro se, Ege Kilinc. ECF Nos. 5—7, 9. The purpose of a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) “is to preserve an existing situation in status quo until the [C]ourt has an opportunity to pass upon the merits of the demand for a preliminary injunction.” Warner Bros. Inc. v. Dae Rim Trading, Inc., 877 F.2d 1120, 1125 (2d Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Here, Kilinc seeks a temporary restraining order that would provide him with affirmative relief changing the status quo. See ECF Nos. 5-7, 9. Accordingly, Kilinc’s motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. Kiline has also filed an application for the Court to request pro bono counsel. ECF No. 4. The factors to be considered in ruling on a litigant’s request for counsel include the merits of their case, their efforts to obtain a lawyer, and their ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). Of these, the merits command “the most attention.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. Because it is too early in the proceedings for the Court to assess the merits of this action, Kilinc’s application for the Court to request pro bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 4. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 29, 2025 New York, New York _ ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

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, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ege-kilinc-v-pmmue-eduservices-private-limited-dba-tetr-college-of-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack