Napa County Dodges Federal Court Scrutiny of Wine Tasting Rules

Napa vineyards cannot continue with their federal challenge to county restrictions on public tastings and tours because a judge found they already have a place to raise their claims, in a pending state court case the county filed years ago.

Judge Charles R. Breyer of the US District Court for the Northern District of California decided Friday not to intervene in the county’s ongoing enforcement of land-use regulations.

A state judge has already found Hoopes Vineyard LLC, in its defense to a Napa County state court suit, will represent the interests of two other vineyards that joined the federal litigation. Federal action would “tangibly and imminently disrupt” the pending lawsuit, Breyer wrote.

Hoopes, Summit Lake Vineyards & Winery LLC, and Cooks Flat Associates, which does business as Smith-Madrone, accused Napa County’s limits on hosting certain events of violating federal and California law, including the First Amendment and the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Breyer rejected the wineries’ argument that the court needs to compare each claim raised in state and federal court before tossing the federal suit.

“The effort that Plaintiffs expend contrasting their federal complaint with Hoopes’s state-court filings thus misses the point,” Breyer wrote. “What matters is whether Hoopes had the opportunity—whether or not Hoopes took advantage of it—to raise the claims Plaintiffs assert here in state court.”

The wineries haven’t shown that the regulations so plainly violate the Constitution that they can never be “validly enforced,” Breyer said. And they haven’t shown the regulations caused irreparable harm, he said.

The one claim the federal court found proper to address came from Summit Lake and Smith-Madrone, which alleged Napa County retaliated against them for getting involved in state court litigation. The county allegedly posed as potential customers and emailed to ask if the wineries hosted events.

The wineries didn’t show the county deterred them from speaking, and the emails may have been part of a broader enforcement strategy, not targeted retaliation, Breyer said.

The case is Hoopes Vineyard LLC v. County of Napa, N.D. Cal., No. 24-CV-06256-CRB, 3/28/25.