By EDWARD BOOTH | pressdemocrat.com | PUBLISHED: April 14, 2026 | A federal lawsuit filed by Hoopes Vineyard and two other small wineries challenging Napa County land use rules is back on, after an appeals court this week reversed an earlier dismissal of some claims from the…
by Barry Eberling, Napa Valley Register, April 15, 2026 | A federal appeals court’s three-judge panel ruled that much of a lawsuit filed against Napa County by Hoopes Vineyard, Smith-Madrone Winery and Summit Lake Vineyards over county winery regulations can…
Lyndsay Hoopes has a lot on her plate—and it’s not just wine. Napa County has hit Hoopes Vineyard with a public nuisance complaint over everything from tastings and visitation to a small animal sanctuary on the property. Now, they’re demanding…
One of Napa’s most contentious laws could come under the microscope after a successful Michigan lawsuit. W. Blake Gray | Wine-Searcher | The modern history of Napa County revolves around its agricultural preserve law, which local voters approved in 1968. It’s intended…
The single most damaging force to the future of small Napa wineries isn’t a foreign tariff. It’s Napa County government. LINDSAY HOOPES, HEATHER BRAKESMAN-GRIFFIN AND STUART SMITH | The Press Democrat The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are…
Ray Fister | Life Between the Vines | I recently had an opportunity to sit down with three Napa Valley vintners to discuss several law suits which have been in the news. Lindsay Hoopes founded her winery in Yountville in…
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.
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.”
BY ALDER YARROW | VINOGRAPHY | Napa County has been biting the hand that feeds it for a long time. But now it seems intent upon dismembering the body itself. Under increased industry scrutiny and in the face of ongoing legal…
On March 30th, beginning at 2:00 p.m., Hoopes Vineyard will livestream from Hoopes Oasis to answer any and all of your questions about this case.
Tune in on www.instagram.com/hoopesvineyard/
DM any questions you may have.
Attending in person is welcome also: Hoopes Oasis, 6204 Washington Street, Yountville (94558); please RSVP to [email protected]
We are inviting Supervisor Anne Cottrell and welcome anyone from the County to attend as well.