Hoopes Vineyard, LLC v. County of Napa

── Hoopes Vineyard, LLC v. County of Napa ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HOOPES VINEYARD, LLC, a California No. 25-2715 limited liability company; SUMMIT LAKE D.C. No. VINEYARDS & WINERY, LLC, a 3:24-cv-06256-CRB California limited liability company; COOK'S FLAT ASSOCIATES A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MEMORANDUM* DBA, Smith-Madrone, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. COUNTY OF NAPA, Defendant - Appellee. HOOPES VINEYARD, LLC; SUMMIT No. 25-3903 LAKE VINEYARDS & WINERY, LLC; COOK'S FLAT ASSOCIATES A D.C. No. CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 3:24-cv-06256-CRB Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. COUNTY OF NAPA, Defendant - Appellee. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 10, 2026 San Francisco, California Before: H.A. THOMAS and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges, and VERA, District Judge.** Hoopes Vineyard, LLC (“Hoopes”), Summit Lake Vineyards & Winery, LLC (“Summit Lake”), and Cook’s Flat Associates (“Smith-Madrone”) appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their claims against the County of Napa (“Napa”). We review a district court’s decision to abstain from hearing claims under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), de novo. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Connors, 979 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 2020). We also review a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo. Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 15 F.4th 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2021). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. 1 1. “For civil cases, ‘Younger abstention is appropriate only when the state proceedings: (1) are ongoing, (2) are quasi-criminal enforcement actions or involve ** The Honorable Hernan Diego Vera, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. 1 Napa’s motion for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 25) and supplemental motion for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 39) are granted. 2 25-2715 a state’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts, (3) implicate an important state interest, and (4) allow litigants to raise federal challenges.’” Yelp Inc. v. Paxton, 137 F.4th 944, 950 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 759 (9th Cir. 2014)). “If these requirements are met, ‘we then consider whether the federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings and whether an exception to Younger applies.’” Id. at 951 (quoting ReadyLink, 754 F.3d at 759). With the exception of Hoopes’ retaliation claim, the district court did not err in applying Younger and abstaining from hearing Hoopes’ claims here. Hoopes has pointed to no procedural bar to its ability to raise its federal claims in state court. Commc’ns Telesystems Int’l v. Cal. Pub. Utility Comm’n, 196 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The ‘adequate opportunity’ prong of Younger . . . . requires only the absence of ‘procedural bars’ to raising a federal claim in the