Hoopes Winery Lawsuit: $4M Judgment and Excessive Fines Appeal

The Hoopes Vineyard lawsuit is a Napa County code enforcement case that ended in a nearly $4 million judgment against the small family winery in November 2025, after a judge ruled its decades-old Small Winery Exemption did not authorize on-site tastings. The winery is now appealing on excessive-fines grounds while the county pursues collection, and a separate federal lawsuit brought by Hoopes and two other legacy wineries is moving back into the district court after a Ninth Circuit reversal in April 2026.¹²

What the Dispute Is About

In 2022, Napa County filed a civil complaint in Napa Superior Court alleging that Hoopes Vineyard was conducting unpermitted tours and tastings, hosting marketing events, and using animals as a “petting zoo” in connection with commercial operations. The county called these activities a public nuisance and said they fell outside the winery’s 1984 Small Winery Exemption.³ The complaint also cited building code and flood plain violations tied to unpermitted structures, and the county said it had been asking the winery to obtain a use permit since 2020.¹

The core question was what the Small Winery Exemption actually covered. That permit category was used by Napa County between 1981 and 1989, ran with the land rather than the owner, and required no renewal.⁴⁵⁶

After an 11-day bench trial in early 2024, Napa Superior Court Judge Mark Boessenecker ruled in the county’s favor in November 2024 on the tasting question.⁶

How the $4 Million Judgment Breaks Down

In November 2025, Judge Boessenecker imposed a total judgment of $3,960,013.05. It consists of:¹

$1,530,000 in civil penalties, calculated at $1,250 per day for 1,220 days of violations
$2,250,000 in attorney fees, covering outside counsel the county hired to prosecute the case
$111,230 in abatement costs
Approximately $70,000 in statutory costs

Napa County had originally sought more than $8 million. The court also entered a permanent injunction barring on-site tastings and tours unless the winery obtains a use permit, while allowing lawful wine production and sales of up to 20,000 gallons per year to continue.⁶³

The fact that more than half the total is attorney fees for private lawyers the county hired drew the sharpest criticism. Bridget Conlan, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, called the fines “clearly outrageous in light of the fact that no one was harmed from sipping wine at a winery.”⁷

The Excessive Fines Appeal

On February 11, 2026, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a motion on behalf of Hoopes Vineyard to vacate or reduce the judgment, arguing it violated the Excessive Fines Clause of both the Eighth Amendment and Article I of the California Constitution. PLF represents the winery at no cost.¹ The argument leans on the 1998 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Bajakajian, which held that a financial penalty must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense.⁵

PLF contends the judgment exceeds the winery’s total lifetime revenue and would bankrupt both the business and Lindsay Hoopes personally, since the county sought individual liability. The motion also argued the trial court never asked about the defendants’ ability to pay.⁸⁹

On March 27, 2026, the Superior Court denied the motion. Hoopes appealed to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, which granted a temporary stay of the monetary judgment on April 11, 2026, then dissolved it on May 29. Lindsay Hoopes petitioned the California Supreme Court to reinstate the stay; that petition was denied on June 9, 2026.³¹⁰

One piece of good news for the winery: the permanent injunction against tastings and tours is automatically stayed while the appeal proceeds, so the tasting room can stay open in the meantime.¹¹

Collection Is Already Underway

With the stay lifted, Napa County issued a writ of execution on June 1, 2026, and an order of examination is scheduled for July 27, 2026.³ County public information officer Linda Weinreich said the county is “currently evaluating its options for collection of the monetary judgment” and described its actions as “simply enforcing our code, which is designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of Napa County.”¹⁰

Conlan warned that active collection could end the business before the appeal is decided. “Unless the court spontaneously restores the stay that prevented the county from collecting while the case is ongoing, the county can simply bury Lindsay at any moment,” she said.¹⁰

The Federal Lawsuit

On September 5, 2024, Hoopes joined Summit Lake Vineyards and Winery and Cook’s Flat Associates (which operates Smith-Madrone Winery) in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The wineries alleged Napa County’s policies and ordinances were “restrictive, ever-changing, and unconstitutionally vague,” giving officials unfettered discretion to shut down operations, and they brought First Amendment retaliation claims tied to their public criticism of the county.²¹²

All three plaintiffs were established before 1990 and had operated under small winery exemptions for decades. Summit Lake said it received no violation notices until 2019, when it applied to increase production and was told it had been “unlawfully hosting tastings.” Smith-Madrone, in operation for over 50 years, said the county had changed its permitted visitor count in an internal database to “zero visitors a day” without notifying the winery.¹³

In March 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer dismissed portions of the case, ruling that claims aimed at blocking county enforcement could not proceed while the Hoopes state case was still active. On April 13, 2026, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed much of that decision. The panel held that abstention should not have applied to Summit Lake and Smith-Madrone, which are not parties to the state case, and sent their First Amendment retaliation claims and challenges to the county’s winery regulations back to the district court. It also reinstated Hoopes’s own retaliation claim for damages, finding it “sufficiently separable” because it involved the owner’s personal residence, which is not part of the state proceedings. The panel affirmed the pause on Hoopes’s broader ordinance challenge until the state case ends.¹⁴

The panel found the plaintiffs had raised sufficient inferences of retaliatory motive based on the proximity in time between their protected speech and the county’s enforcement actions.¹⁴

Why This Case Matters Beyond Hoopes

The dispute sits inside a larger fight over how Napa County treats small legacy wineries. The 1990 Winery Definition Ordinance regulates production, visitor capacity, events, and food and non-wine sales, and it requires a use permit to host tastings. Building the production facility required for a use permit can cost up to $5 million.¹¹¹⁵

Small wineries operating before 1990 were originally exempted, but in recent years county officials have told some legacy producers their exemptions do not cover tastings, effectively changing their permitted operations without formal notice. The county has also used undercover “secret shoppers” to identify wineries conducting unauthorized activities.¹⁵ On April 10, 2026, four industry groups — the Napa County Farm Bureau, Napa Valley Vintners, Napa Valley Grapegrowers, and Winegrowers of Napa County — submitted a joint proposal of 23 recommendations to county officials, including allowing walk-in visitors under existing permit limits and reforming the appeals process. The Board of Supervisors referred the proposals to staff for review, with no reforms adopted and no timeline set.¹⁶

Where the Case Stands

As of mid-2026, Napa County is actively pursuing collection on the nearly $4 million judgment while Hoopes Vineyard’s appeal on the merits, including the excessive-fines challenge, moves through the California Court of Appeal. The tasting room remains open because the injunction is stayed during the appeal.¹¹²

1
The Drinks Business. Hoopes Vineyard Fights Unconstitutionally Excessive Fines
2
Press Democrat. Federal Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Some Claims Against Napa County in Hoopes Vineyard Case
3
Napa County. Hoopes Nuisance Litigation
4
Pacific Legal Foundation. Napa County Collected Taxes on Her Wine for Decades. Now It Wants $4 Million Because She Poured It
5
Pacific Legal Foundation. Hoopes Vineyard Napa County
6
Napa County Times. Hoopes Vineyard Faces Over $3.8 Million After Judge Rejects Bid for New Trial
7
Napa County Times. Hoopes Vineyard Hit With Millions in Fines Attorney Fees
8
Pacific Legal Foundation. Family Winery Appeals Napa County’s Multimillion Dollar Fine
9
Local News Matters. Hoopes Vineyard Seeks to Void Ruinous Fine From Napa County Over On-Site Tastings
10
Press Democrat. Judgment Requiring Napa Winery to Pay $4 Million Moves Forward After Temporary Stay Dissolved
11
Wine Spectator. Legal Fight Between Napa County and Small Wineries Continues
12
Wine Business. Napa Winery Federal Lawsuit
13
Wine Spectator. Wineries Sue Napa County in Federal Court
14
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Hoopes Vineyard LLC v. County of Napa, Nos. 25-2715, 25-3903
15
R Street Institute. Napa’s Wineries Battle Local Restrictions
16
Press Democrat. Napa County Winery Vineyard Land Use Policy