Napa Wineries Seek $250,000 to Fund Lawsuit Against the County

Three Napa County, Calif., wineries have joined to sue Napa County in federal court alleging widespread violation of their of their Constitutional rights. They have started a GoFundMe page to raise $250,000 to pay for the lawsuit.

The claims brought by the wineries are far-reaching and extensive.  In their suit, the wineries allege –

• Their rights to host visitors and events in their tasting room and to serve samples and glasses of wine to their customers are protected by the First Amendment and California law. 
• Napa County violates the First Amendment when it requires wineries to get prior approval before hosting events and when it regulates “cultural events” at wineries based upon the message delivered at those events.
• Napa County doesn't have clear definitions for tems like "tastings" and "marketing," so interpretation is left to the discretion of County staff. Without clear guidance, County staff can change the rules on a whim and threaten to shut down wineries that do not comply, which violates the wineries’ Due Process rights.
• The County's "voluntary compliance program," which requires the wineries to get approval from neighboring property owners and third party groups, violates the non-delegation doctrine.
• The county's requirement that wineries pay for public improvements and indemnify the county in the event of a lawsuit and an unconstitutional exaction.
• Napa County's requirement to use 75% local fruit in unlawful economic protectionism.

Napa County filed a motion to dismiss their lawsuit. It is scheduled to be heard on Feb. 21.

 “We are small family-owned winery businesses trying to protect our constitutional rights,” said Heather Brakesman-Griffin of Summit Lake Vineyard, Lindsay Hoopes of Hoopes Vineyard and Stuart Smith of Smith-Madrone Winery in a joint statement.

“Only by going to the federal courts can we protect our constitutional rights to ensure fairness in being regulated by Napa County,” they added. “Whether it’s unfair and capricious manipulation of the winery database, ever-changing interpretations of the road and street standards or other issues, there is a desperate need to find fairness, professionalism and integrity in how we are regulated,” they added.

“In 1971 I went before the Board of Supervisors at a public hearing and got my use permit which allows me to host customers at my winery,” Stu Smith explains. “Now 48 years later, without my being notified or being allowed to be present to defend my rights, the County arbitrarily and capriciously changed my permitting to 0 visitors/day and somehow came up with 10 visitors/week. ‘New Math’ or just regular old math, it is still true that zero times anything is zero. I only found this out by stumbling upon Napa County’s winery database. This is insane governmental overreach; Kafka would be pleased,” Smith adds.

They are being represented by Joseph Infante, a lawyer with Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC, a law firm with experience in bringing constitutional claims against local governments on behalf of wineries.

“It really struck me that there’s a winery in Napa that’s not allowed to have any visitors whatsoever, but the winery next door can have 300 visitors a day,” Infante said. “The government doesn’t tell your neighborhood coffee shop how many customers it can see a day, but for these wineries it does. It’s just not how business is done.”

Infante recently successfully tried a similar case on behalf of 11 wineries in Michigan.