W. Blake Gray | Wine Searcher |

The first battle between a winery and the authorities went to the County, but the war isn’t over yet.

Round one in the battle between prosecutor-turned-vintner Lindsay Hoopes and Napa County went to the county, and it could end up costing Hoopes more than $1 million dollars.

However, the battle is not yet over. The judge’s tentative decision sounds firmly on Napa County‘s side – but it is a tentative decision, and her countersuits are ongoing.

Hoopes, a former San Francisco homicide prosecutor, bought the former Hopper Creek Winery near Yountville in 2017. Napa County has tried to prevent her from holding wine tastings there, and issued her notices of permit violations in 2020 and 2021. She argues that Hopper Creek, which was founded in 1984, has the right to host tastings because it was grandfathered in before the county passed a Winery Definition Ordinance in 1990. The county sued Hoopes; she countersued right back. The county’s suit went to trial in February.

Last week, Napa County Superior Court Judge Mark Boessenecker made a tentative ruling against Hoopes, agreeing with the county that Hoopes Vineyard is a “public nuisance”.

“Hoopes unlawfully expanded its business without approval through the County’s permit process,” Judge Boessenecker wrote. “This is patently unfair because it gives Hoopes an unfair advantage. Hoopes does not have to spend the money to upgrade its systems and comply with the law, while other, law-abiding wineries do.”

His tentative ruling also found Lindsay Hoopes personally liable, which opens her up to have to pay the county’s legal fees as well as possible other unspecified damages. The county has spent more than $1 million on a private law firm in the case.

However, Boessnecker also refused to dismiss Hoopes’ countersuit against Napa County. He called for briefs from both sides, including a brief from the county outlining its damages and attorney fees. And Hoopes was quick to point out that a different decision in her countersuit, or even a different decision later by Boessnecker after reading the briefs, could overturn this temporary verdict.

“The ruling is tentative with so many outstanding issues to resolve (that we believe will come down in our favor) that it is way too early to responsibly report on … and from my perspective make any assessment of what impact it would have,” Hoopes told Wine-Searcher in an email.

“Judge Boessenecker has actually changed every tentative decision he issued in this case to date … The ‘ruling’ is not final, and is not a setback. It has no bearing on the cross complaint (which is decided by a jury), has no legal import or precedential value at this stage, and does not have any impact on the federal case which would necessarily impact the validity of the tentative as well. I imagine the County released it to the media to give an impression it was ‘more than’ it actually is.”

To be clear, as with all court decisions in California, the judge’s ruling is public record.

“I am surprised the media is reporting on it with so many issues unresolved,” said Hoopes, who held a press conference about the case last year and has also spoken about the lawsuit to the San Francisco Chronicle, Wine Spectator and The Daily Mail.

Where to next?

Hoopes can appeal, the verdict could be overturned, and she still has a countersuit against the county that the same judge who made a preliminary ruling against her allowed to go forward.

But Boessenecker’s preliminary ruling sounds pretty firm. He cites evidence from the trial that show that the original owner of the property was allowed “0 visitors” and “no tours and public tastings”. The winery was sold to a new owner in 1996; that owner received two notices of code violations from the county for allowing tastings. The second came just two months before Hoopes purchased the property. Prior to buying it, Hoopes sent an email to her realtor reading: “So as I thought, it looks like they were not actually allowed to do tastings.”

Hoopes’ former attorney told the county in 2018 that Hoopes planned to upgrade the property and apply for a use permit. Hoopes testified that when she learned it would cost $500,000 to $1 million, she abandoned the idea.

The county used three secret shoppers on Hoopes Vineyard between 2020 and 2023. The first, online, was offered a choice of three tasting flights. The second and third went in person and each had a tasting.

“Hoopes is subject to an SWE (Small Winery Exemption) that was issued in 1984 and 1987 that explicitly provides: ‘no tours/public tastings’,” Judge Boessenecker wrote. “Hoopes was made aware, prior to purchase of the Winery, that the previous owner had received two Notice of Violations regarding improper tours and tastings without a permit. Hoopes explored upgrades necessary to qualify for a use permit but abandoned that plan after learning the cost. The local statute that governs Hoopes’ entitlements and prohibits a small winery from conducting public tours and providing wine tastings has been in effect since 1980 … The evidence … established that the Winery has been conducting public tours, wine tastings, sale of wine-related items, and holding social events of a public nature.”

Hoopes opened a menagerie called “the Oasis” for which she advertises “goats, chickens, a turkey, a donkey, mini pot belly pigs, miniature horses and micro pigs that customers can visit”. The county alleged that Hoopes “deposits animal waste near adjacent Hopper Creek”. Judge Boessenecker wrote that after increased visitation: “Hoopes failed to upgrade its water and wastewater systems, thereby creating potential public health and safety issues.”

But Hoopes may yet have her revenge, and even if it wins this round, the county might rue the day she came to town.

Last month, Hoopes Vineyard and two other wineries sued Napa County in federal court, claiming that their right to host visitors and events, and serve samples of wine, are protected by the First Amendment and California law. The wineries also claim that Napa County violates the First Amendment when it requires wineries to get prior approval before hosting events, and when it regulates “cultural events” at wineries based upon the message delivered at those events.

More significantly, they also attacked a Napa County regulation that appears very vulnerable to a federal court challenge. Napa County currently requires all wineries in the county to use at least 75 percent total Napa-grown grapes for their total production of all wines made in the county, even those wines that don’t say “Napa AVA” on the label. This would seem to discriminate against grapegrowers in other counties and will be a difficult law for the county to defend. Perhaps it could be the wedge issue that undermines Napa County’s strict regulation of wineries.

In other words, both Hoopes and Napa County could be big losers in this ongoing multi-court battle. Hoopes is right: It’s not over until it’s over. So consider this, rather than a full-fledged game summary, a mere halftime report.