A Napa Valley vintner who has been locked in a legal battle with county officials for several years over allowed wine tasting and visitor activities now is facing a new county court order to pay almost $4 million in fines and legal fees.
Meanwhile, a 53-year-old legal defense group with a long track record of successfully challenging government power all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court has stepped in to help Hoopes Vineyard with the case.
Late last month, Napa County Superior Court Judge Mark Boessenecker finalized his Nov. 3 judgment against Hoopes Family Winery Partners LP, Hoopes Vineyard LLC and owner Lindsay Hoopes following a trial in early 2025. That converted a preliminary injunction from earlier in the year into a permanent injunction.
The total award includes $1.53 million in civil penalties ($1,250 a day for 1,220 days), $2.25 million in attorney’s fees, $111,230 in abatement costs and almost $70,000 in statutory costs.
The winery has appealed the injunctions in the 1st Appellate District of California. The latest, filed in late December, is pending.
“We recommended to the county to wait for the Court of Appeal to rule on whether the (permanent) injunction was legal, but the county did what they did,” Hoopes told the Journal.
Hoopes has brought in Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation to help argue the case. On Feb. 11 it filed a motion to vacate Boessenecker’s Nov. 3 judgment, asserting that the penalties are unconstitutionally excessive and would bankrupt the family operation.
The permanent injunction bars a wide range of activities at the winery property at 6204 Washington St. just south of Yountville, including public wine tastings and consumption, tours, marketing events, merchandise sales, sale of wine not produced on-site and food service.
Asked what winery operations are currently occurring, Hoopes told the Journal: “I won’t answer that question. The injunction is not enforceable. We don’t believe there is a legal enforceable option.”
Hoopes and her attorneys from Pacific Legal Foundation argue the penalties violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment and part of the California Constitution. Founded in 1973, the nonprofit public-interest law firm takes on cases at no charge and touts a track record that includes 18 wins in 20 cases argued before the nation’s top court.
“No family should lose everything over ordinary business activity that harms no one. The Constitution promises that punishment must be fair and proportional. We’re standing up for Lindsay’s right to preserve her family’s legacy without being crushed by excessive fines,” foundation senior attorney Anastasia Boden said in the news release.
Hoopes took over the family winery, originally purchased by her father four decades ago, and later expanded by acquiring Hopper Creek in 2017. Hopper Creek had operated under a county Small Winery Exemption since 1984, which allowed certain wineries established between 1981 and 1989 to operate without a conditional use permit. Hoopes’ argument, reiterated in the foundation’s filing, is Napa County long allowed tastings under such exemptions and that county records authorized Hopper Creek to conduct tastings.
The motion to vacate asserts the winery’s activities caused “zero harm to the public” and characterizes the violations as minor, involving on-site wine consumption. It argues the penalties are “grossly disproportionate,” exceed the property’s lifetime revenue and threaten to destroy Hoopes’ livelihood.
In a legal filing accompanying the foundation’s, Hoopes states the judgment exceeds 90% of the property’s $4.4 million purchase price and that total revenue from the property has never surpassed $500,000. She claimed the fines and fees would bankrupt the business and her personally, noting she has already sold a family vineyard and home to fund litigation and supports four young children and her disabled father.
Hoopes and the foundation also argue the winery team acted in good faith under what they describe as a “confusing and inconsistently applied land use scheme.” They cite state-level approvals, including a Type 02 winegrower license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and a 2021 expansion approval, and they claim the agency confirmed no conflict with local zoning. The argument points to a 2019 county response form to the agency indicating the winery’s “intended use is allowed and approved,” according to the declaration.
Hoopes also is battling the county in federal court. A federal lawsuit filed by Hoopes and two other wineries nearly a year ago had been dismissed in part while the state appeal of the enforcement case proceeds, The Press Democrat reported.
The matter is now set for oral argument before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on March 10.
Jeff Quackenbush joined North Bay Business Journal in May 1999. He covers primarily wine, construction and real estate. Reach him at jeff@nbbj.news or 707-521-4256.
Leave a Reply