Barry Eberling |Dec 12, 2023 | Napa Valley Register |
A Napa County Superior Court judge decided the Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake wineries can’t join the legal tussle between Napa County and Hoopes winery over the county’s winery rules.
Judge Mark Boessenecker had previously issued a tentative ruling that would have allowed the two wineries to join on the Hoopes side. Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake contend the outcome of the case will affect them and many other wineries as well.
But Napa County’s attorneys changed Boessenecker’s mind by pointing to a 1939 case involving not wine, but milk.
Some milk distributors wanted to join in on a milk rules case involving Jersey Maid Milk Products. The state Supreme Court ruled they didn’t have a direct interest, given the judgment wouldn’t actually be binding on them.
Boessenecker saw parallels with today’s Napa County case. Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake have an interest in the precedent set by a Hoopes decision, rather than the direct effect of the decision, he wrote in his final Nov. 28 ruling.
He also wrote that allowing the two wineries to join would “complicate an already complicated case.”
“We’re disappointed, obviously, with the ruling,” Stuart Smith of Smith-Madrone said Monday. “… Be that as it may, we are reviewing our options and trying to decide how to move forward. We’re not quite sure of that at the moment.”
Summit Lake winery couldn’t be reached for comment on Monday.
The attempt by Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake to join the Hoopes case received widespread local publicity. Owners of the three wineries at one point held a Zoom news conference attended by several regional news outlets.
Napa County sued Hoopes winery in 2022. It alleged the winery near Yountville hosted tasting visitors and events not allowed under its 1984 county approval, among other allegations. Hoopes would have to seek county permission to continue the visitations.
The county’s lawsuit talked of protecting the county’s agricultural preserve, which since 1968 has set aside most rural land outside of cities for farming. Even Napa County’s most famous wineries are limited in what they can do, it said.
Hoopes winery responded by filing a countercomplaint. It alleged the county’s winery rules are unintelligible and vague and that some are unconstitutional.
“It is impossible to operate a business when the goalposts keep moving,” Lindsay Hoopes said in September. “This is an enormous problem, but everyone is too afraid to come forward.”
Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake winery said they face issues similar to those facing Hoopes. Both wineries claim visitation rights greater than that shown on a Napa County winery database. They mentioned potentially having to ask the county for rights they believe they already possess.
The two wineries said there are issues raised by the Hoopes case common to small wineries established before the county’s 1990 winery definition ordinance. That argument didn’t prove enough to get them added to the Hoopes case against the county.
But Boessenecker’s ruling mentioned “a form of pseudo-intervention.” The wineries could file amicus curiae briefs in the Hoopes matter, which would in effect be offering information that the court could consider.
“We may look at this,” Smith said. “That’s having maybe your toe in the water, as opposed to actually being in the water.”