March 10, 2025 (Napa, CA) — On Friday March 7, the First District Court of Appeal, Justice James Richman presiding, issued a stay of Napa County’s Injunction in the Napa County vs. Hoopes case.
Hoopes filed a writ of supersedeas requesting the stay on March 6 and the decision to issue the immediate stay was handed down within 24 hours.
The stay indicates the Court found strong showing of a likelihood of reversal on appeal, and irreparable harm to Hoopes if the order stayed in place pending any appeal. The injunction currently cannot be enforced as to any of its terms.
Napa County’s injunction shuttered Hoopes, a property entitled for “winery,” and licensed by the ABC as a winery, by prohibiting critical winery activities otherwise allowed throughout the zoning district.
The order also ordered removal of animals at the County’s request. Although at the last minute the County backpedaled, the order still prohibited anyone from being “enticed” by the animals, which required Hoopes to remove the animals despite the County’s statements otherwise to the public.
“We showed the Court of Appeal, through the existing trial record, that we have been legally operating since 1984, and are fully licensed for all the activities by the State ABC. In 2019, Napa approved our winery license because they told the ABC we have a “use permit.” They apparently changed their position between 2019 and 2022, when they sued the winery without public complaint or ever having issued a citation,” Lindsay Hoopes explains.
“We are confident in the legal position, and believe the Court of Appeal will see the case the way the initial trial judge (Cynthia Smith) saw the law, which is that none of the activities violated any zoning ordinance or any law. No one disputes (not even the County) that we are entitled as a winery, and fully licensed as a winery. The only question presented is what can the unlimited visitors do once they get there. This is not a question of whether people are allowed to be there,” she adds.
“A winery is a state license. Our position is that what a “winery” is and does is defined by the ABC because they are the only entity that can issue a winery license. A County can say where it can operate, and if it is a permitted use. But as to “how” it sells alcohol, or what a “sale” looks like, that’s up to the state. Once the license issues, only the ABC or Supreme Court can take it away,” Hoopes said.
The issues involved in the injunction also involved serious constitutional defects, including a warrantless search condition, prohibition of all commercial speech in “marketing” in connection with animals, or “any commercial activity.”
Hoopes argued to the lower court that the injunction was unconstitutional and against settled law, but Judge Mark Boessenecker entered the Order as requested by Napa. After requesting a stay, which was denied, Hoopes was forced to go to the Court of Appeals. Although very rare, with a high burden, the Court of Appeals sided with Hoopes for now, and granted the temporary stay.
The emergency order provided a briefing schedule for later in March. The County must submit its response by March 21 and Hoopes will respond to that by March 28.
In 2022, Judge Cynthia Smith had ruled that Napa’s position was unlikely to win on the merits. Judge Victoria Wood took a similar position in the Napa v. Bremer case in a tentative ruling that never entered. Both judges ultimately recused themselves from the respective cases.
A prosecutor’s office, including County Counsel, is under an obligation to have sufficient evidence prior to proceeding on any case against a citizen. The lack of merits identified back in November 2022 raises substantial questions about why this case proceeded, and using substantial taxpayer funds (an additional $2.4 million, at least) since that date.
Hoopes assembled 19 volumes of exhibits in this case for the Court of Appeal, an exhaustive documentation of records, from the trial court, including emails and correspondence from Napa County. The records can be downloaded from the Court of Appeal, including all the attached exhibits supporting Hoopes’ position.
