Legal dispute between Napa Cuunty and Hoopes winery continues

Instead of presenting their arguments orally after testimony concluded on February 14, the attorneys filed post-trial briefs. The district filed them on May 24 and the Hoopes side filed them on July 3.

Napa County Superior Court Judge Mark Boessenecker will issue a ruling at some point.

The county sued Hoopes in October 2022 for allegedly inviting guests to tastings, which the county says is prohibited unless the winery applies for and receives a use permit. The county says the winery near Yountville is in violation of visitation and other regulations.

“After an 11-day trial, it is now clear that Hoopes Winery is in blatant violation of Napa County regulations and has no justification for its refusal to apply for and receive an appropriate use permit,” the county said in its closing argument.

Hoopes' lawyers took a different view.

“The county seeks to rewrite historic winery rights and deprive property owners of their vested and economically important rights by decree, without due process and contrary to state authority over winemaking and liquor licensing,” the Hoopes brief states.

The 11-day trial may be just the first part. Hoopes filed a countersuit against the county in December 2022, challenging the proper application of its rules and claiming some of those rules are unconstitutional.

Boessenecker decided to first address the county's lawsuit in the February trial and then Hoopes' countersuit in a possible second trial.

“The second phase must continue,” says the Hoopes document.

Napa County stated in its brief that the countersuit issues were already addressed in February and that no second trial was necessary. Instead, the county is seeking an injunction stopping all allegedly illegal activities at Hoopes Winery, as well as fines.

The outcome of the Hoopes case may or may not impact broader regulations governing wineries in Napa County.

Most wineries have use permits issued by the county planning commission. These permits determine, among other things, how much wine they can produce and how many visitors they can receive, depending on variables such as location, the condition of access roads and groundwater supplies.

However, Hoopes Winery was established in 1984 by a previous owner using a small winery exemption. The now-defunct small winery exemption program ran in the 1980s and allowed applying wineries to receive simplified permits if they agreed to certain conditions.

According to Napa County officials, those conditions include not allowing visitors at wine tastings or events. To receive visitors, Hoopes would have to obtain an occupancy permit, the county said – an undertaking that can be expensive.

Hoopes' lawyers explained in their brief that the written exceptions for small wineries allow for bar tours and “public” wine tastings, understood to be walk-ins. The permits make no mention of the “private” wine tastings Hoopes hosts by appointment.

Additionally, state law allows wineries to sell wine. Hoope's lawyers said selling wine includes giving wine samples to customers.

“Under its (state liquor) license, Hoopes is expressly permitted to conduct both tasting and consumption,” the letter states.

Napa County argued that the state law does not interfere with local land use sovereignty or local control over where and how alcohol can be served.

“The evidence at trial clearly showed that Hoopes advertised and attracted visitors to the property for wine tastings, sold wine-related and non-wine-related merchandise, offered a food service, and held events – activities that are all unlawful without a site-specific use permit,” the county said in its statement.

According to Hoopes, this is not the case.

“The defendants operate a lawful winery, have not caused a public nuisance, and have not engaged in unfair business practices,” the Hoopes brief states.

Napa County also alleged that Hoopes had chicken coops, a shade structure and other structures that either did not have building permits, did not have flood plain permits or both. Some of the alleged violations date back to 2020. The maximum fine is $1,000 per day.

Boessenecker will decide which side prevails.