Live Radio
photo credit: Courtesy of Hoopevineyard.comA still from a promotional video on the Hoopes Vineyard website.
A small Napa County winery is trying to void a multi-million-dollar penalty it incurred during a legal dispute with the county, saying the "ruinous" fine and attorneys' fees are unconstitutional and will drive it into bankruptcy.
The seeds of the court battle involving Hoopes Winery were planted in 2020, when the county said wine tastings and tours weren't allowed at the property, located just south of Yountville off state Highway 29.The winery is owned by Lindsay Hoopes, who took over from her father and who also later acquired Hopper Creek Winery just down the road.
Although Hoopes says she obtained the required licenses, Napa County officials declared her operations a public nuisance, bypassed an administrative hearing process and went directly to court, according to her lawyers.
The county prevailed on its claims, which included an allegation of illegal business practices, following a 10-day bench trial in front of Napa County Superior Court Judge Mark Boessenecker.
In December 2025, Boessenecker imposed more than $1.5 million in civil penalties that the county said Hoopes had accrued during the dispute.
When added to attorneys' fees racked up by the county, Hoopes is now on the hook for nearly $4 million, according to Bridget Conlan, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing the winery's owner for free.
"This is just a great example of government overreach," said Conlan, who on Wednesday filed a motion asking the court to eliminate or reduce the fine.
The motion asks the court to "vacate or amend the judgment based on excessive damages and failure to make any inquiry into Defendants' ability to pay or the impact on their livelihood."
Conlan and her colleagues argue that such a massive penalty violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the California Constitution, which both prohibit fines that are "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense or that destroy a person's ability to earn a living," according to the motion filed Wednesday.
In this case, the dollar amounts asked for by the county and imposed by the judge "exceed the property's lifetime revenue, will bankrupt the multigenerational winery and personally bankrupt Ms. Hoopes, and threaten the forced sale of the vineyard -- all for conduct that is expressly legal at large wineries in Napa County and that is now being affirmatively legalized across Napa County at even non-winery vineyards," according to the motion.
Part of the reason why the dollar amount is so large is because the county chose to initiate an expensive court battle rather than engage in any kind of meaningful administrative solution, Conlan said.
Also, instead of using in-house lawyers already on its payroll, the county opted to hire an outside law firm to handle the litigation, she said.
"They call this 'for profit prosecution,'" Conlan said. "When private firms are hired by the government it definitely changes the incentive."
Also, according to Conlan, at the very start of the process, the county indicated that it would ask a judge to require Hoopes to pay its legal fees in the event of a victory, a practice she said has a chilling effect on people's willingness to fight back, even if they believe the accusations against them are unjust.
"It definitely deters you from defending yourself," she said. "It's like a threat."
A Napa County spokesperson didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on the fine, but the county has a website dedicated to the case that can be found at https://www.napacounty.gov/3857/Hoopes-Nuisance-Litigation.
Conlan hopes to get a hearing on her motion by sometime in late March and added that a future decision about the fees might be incorporated into Hoopes' separate appeal of the original judgement in favor of the county, which is being handled by another law firm.
"No family should lose everything over ordinary business activity that harms no one," said Anastasia Boden, a Pacific Legal Foundation lawyer also working on the case. "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."
