A federal judge has paused a lawsuit by Hoopes Vineyard and two other wineries challenging Napa County’s land use rules, saying it can’t proceed while a related case is still active in state court.
EDWARD BOOTH | THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit filed by Hoopes Vineyard and two other small wineries challenging Napa County’s land use rules can’t move forward — at least not while a related enforcement case is still playing out in Napa County Superior Court.
The March 28 decision marks the latest development in a yearslong dispute between Hoopes, a Yountville-based winery, and county officials, who say it hosted tastings, tours and other activities without proper permits. In November, a Napa County Superior Court judge found that Hoopes had operated beyond the scope of its permit, though a final ruling in that case is still pending.0:09h More
In the March ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer dismissed parts of the federal lawsuit — filed by Hoopes, Summit Lake Vineyards & Winery and Cook’s Flat Associates (Smith-Madrone Winery) — that aimed to block the county’s enforcement efforts. He said those claims couldn’t proceed while the local case was still underway, as doing so would interfere with the ongoing proceedings in state court.
“The pending state enforcement action provides Hoopes a forum to raise all of its claims, so the court must abstain,” Breyer wrote.
Breyer also found that Summit Lake and Smith-Madrone were in similar positions to Hoopes, and allowing their claims to move forward would interfere with how the county enforces its land use rules. He said deciding their arguments would pull the federal court into a process already being handled by a state judge.
While some reports have framed the ruling as a broader defeat for the wineries, the court didn’t weigh in on the strength of their arguments. Breyer’s order was procedural — not a ruling on whether their constitutional claims are valid — and simply puts those issues on hold until the state case is resolved.
He did allow the wineries’ claim for financial damages to remain open for now, but paused it from proceeding. A separate claim by Summit Lake and Smith-Madrone — alleging the county retaliated against them — was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.
Ryan McGinley-Stempel, an attorney for the county at the Renne Public Law Group, said officials were pleased with the decision.
“Napa County remains committed to ensuring that businesses operating in its jurisdiction do so fairly and in compliance with all applicable regulations to safeguard the health, safety, and well-being of the County’s residents,” he said in a statement.
Joseph Infante, who represents the wineries, said the decision doesn’t prevent the case from being revived later. The wineries will appeal, he said, arguing that the ruling unfairly delays their effort to challenge the county’s rules in federal court.
“Our appeal may take six or so months,” Infante said. “But we believe in fighting for the wineries’ constitutional rights.”
The local case — which could lead to fines in the millions and a court order barring Hoopes from hosting visitors — remains active. Hoopes has also said it may appeal.
In a statement, winery owner Lindsay Hoopes urged Napa County supervisors to work with the wine community to avoid further litigation. She said the industry is seeking clarity on property rights and a regulatory approach that supports its long-term economic health.
“It is clear from the recent landscape that there is substantial confusion as to important rights, and this must be remedied to reestablish confidence in the industry and land ownership in Napa,” she said.
You can reach Staff Writer Edward Booth at 707-521-5281 or [email protected].
