napa lawsuit

On March 28, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer issued an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss on Younger abstention grounds, which essentially stays the federal case while one of the plaintiffs (Hoopes Vineyard) litigates a case in Napa County Superior Court.  While Napa County has claimed the case has been dismissed, this is not entirely accurate given that “when Younger abstention applies, it is appropriate to dismiss the action without prejudice because the court has not addressed the merits of the action.” Howard v. City of Milton, 63 Fed. Appx 978 (2003). 

The court did not make any decision as to the constitutionality of the Napa County ordinances and does not preclude the case from being refiled at a later date. 

Regardless, Hoopes, Summit Lake and Smith-Madrone will be appealing the ruling. “This is a decision on abstention; it is absolutely not a decision on the merits of the case,” explains Joseph Infante, the attorney representing the three wineries. “But, the decision to wait until after the Hoopes state court case is resolved, including any appeals, significantly delays the constitutional rights of the wineries to have their day in court on the constitutional claims that have been raised in federal court which will not be decided in the state court case because they are not a part of that case and Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake are certainly not parties to that case.” he adds.

“Our appeal may take six or so months,” Infante added, “but we believe in fighting for the wineries’ constitutional rights.”