Blount v. Superior Court of California
- Charles Breyer
- 3:25-cv-10852
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Blount v. Superior Court, Judge Breyer denied Alivia Blount’s renewed temporary-restraint request because financial loss did not show irreparable harm.
Alivia Blount’s request for immediate temporary relief was denied. The court stated that her separate motion for reconsideration remained under review.
What happened
In Alivia Blount v. Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, et al., Alivia Blount asked the court for another temporary restraining order while her request for reconsideration was still pending. The court had earlier denied emergency relief and dismissed the case based on domestic-relations abstention principles.
The court denied the new request. It said the reasoning from its earlier emergency-relief order still applied and that Blount’s claimed harm was financial, based on garnishment of her income. The court cited decisions stating that economic injury alone, and temporary loss of income that can ultimately be recovered, usually do not establish irreparable harm.
Judge Charles R. Breyer said the court would consider Blount’s separate request for reconsideration after expedited briefing. This order denied only the new motion for a temporary restraining order.
The detailed version
- Blount v. Superior Court of California · No. 3:25-cv-10852
- Charles Breyer
- Mar. 4, 2026
Background
On January 8, 2026, the court denied Alivia Blount’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and dismissed the case based on domestic-relations abstention principles. Blount then sought reconsideration and requested an immediate ruling so she could appeal the court’s decision. On March 3, 2026, the court ordered the defendants to respond to the reconsideration motion and request for a ruling by March 6.
While that briefing was pending, Blount filed another motion for a temporary restraining order. The opinion identifies the claimed irreparable harm as financial harm resulting from garnishment of her income.
Reasoning
The court denied the new motion because the reasoning in its original temporary-restraining-order order remained applicable. It also concluded that the alleged harm did not establish irreparable harm, an injury that cannot adequately be repaired later. The court cited decisions stating that economic injury alone does not support irreparable harm and that temporary loss of income that can ultimately be recovered usually does not qualify as irreparable injury.
Ruling
Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Blount’s motion for another temporary restraining order. The court stated that it would evaluate the motion for reconsideration after the expedited briefing. This order did not state a ruling on the reconsideration motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.