SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge Friday dismissed a lawsuit against the County of Napa filed by a small wine business challenging the various county laws that prevent it from holding tours and tastings, costing what the winery says is millions of dollars in potential revenue.
In his 17-page order, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer tossed Hoopes Vineyard’s bid for an injunction because the case is already being heard in a different court.
Several years ago, the county filed a strikingly similar lawsuit in Napa County Superior Court against the winery for violating county law, which the judge says prevents their federal case from going forward.
“The pending state enforcement action provides Hoopes a forum to raise all of its claims, so the court must abstain pursuant to Younger v. Harris,” the Bill Clinton appointee ruled.
The federal lawsuit — first brought by Napa-based Hoopes Vineyard in late 2024 — concerns Napa County’s small winery ordinances and land-use regulations, which prevent the vineyard from conducting small tours or wine tastings.
Adding to the quarrel, Napa County has accused the vineyard of unlawfully hosting tastings and tours without a permit. Vineyard owner Lindsay Hoopes claims her winery has been grandfathered in through a regulatory exception for historical small wineries, although Breyer noted in his order that the permit exception still states that no visitors, tours or public tastings are allowed.
In November, a judge in the ongoing state court case ruled in favor of Napa County, which is seeking nearly $8 million in penalties and fees. Hoopes says paying those penalties would cause the winery to close.
Breyer affirmed that federal courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise their jurisdiction but said that sometimes, abstaining from a case is the most “commonsense” thing to do.
“Yet, there are instances where the demands of our federal system require federal courts not to exercise their jurisdiction in order to avoid unnecessary conflict with the states,” Breyer said.
At first, the judge also appeared to side with Hoopes when he agreed that the court needed to conduct a claim-by-claim analysis of their federal complaint.
“That’s true as far as it goes — which is not very far,” the judge said, adding that the court was not required to compare the two complaints to look for overlap. Breyer ultimately rejected the winery’s arguments that to abstain would be inappropriate, saying their in-depth comparisons of the two cases “misses the point.”
The judge also stayed the Hoopes’ claims for damages and dismissed claims by co-plaintiffs Summit Lake Vineyards and Smith-Madrone, who argued that the county was retaliating against them for exercising their First Amendment rights.
After Hoopes initiated her state court lawsuit, Summit Lake and Smith-Madrone spoke in support of her. Sometime after, undercover agents of Napa County posed as potential customers sending emails to the two wineries asking if they could host events at their wineries, which is not allowed under county law.
The judge found that the undercover efforts were likely the result of some policy of stricter law enforcement and not “targeted animus” toward the co-plaintiffs, as the county had been ramping up its enforcement efforts for some time before their specific event.
Attorneys for Napa County celebrated the decision.
“We are very pleased with the court’s thoughtful decision to abstain from interfering with the ounty’s ongoing state court enforcement action against Hoopes Vineyard,” Ryan McGinley-Stempel of Renne Public Law Group, which represents the county, told Courthouse News. “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.”
Attorneys for Hoopes did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The federal case was dismissed without prejudice, and the plaintiffs will have 30 days to repair their lawsuit.
Breyer made clear at a hearing last month he’s not really sure why he’s being asked to hear this case.
“Why should I get involved in something that is presently being litigated in state courts?” he questioned attorneys in February.
That state case remains unresolved, although a judgment on the pleadings is scheduled for late April.
Although Hoopes’s lawyers remain quiet on the subject, people may get their answers soon enough. Lindsay Hoopes announced on Instagram that she plans to hold a town hall on March 30, both in-person and via livestream, where she plans to answer questions from the public about her lawsuits against the county.
In an Instagram post, she invited County Supervisor Anne Cottrell, her long-time rival in the county lawsuit, to attend the event.
“Anne Cottrell and any other county representatives are welcome as well to be part of the conversation and answer questions! Although, considering what they’re covering up, we think it’s unlikely they’ll attend,” Hoopes said via Instagram.