Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Food & Beverage newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (May 29, 2020, 4:19 PM EDT) -- A California winemaker has sued Gov. Gavin Newsom over the state's plan to reopen Napa County wineries during the COVID-19 pandemic, saying it's discriminatory because it allows wineries that serve food to open but is continuing to keep those that only offer wine tastings closed.
Napa Valley-based Caymus Vineyards' suit, filed Thursday in federal court, says Newsom and State Public Health Officer Sonia Angell's reopening plan for nonessential businesses violates the equal protection, due process and takings clauses of the U.S. and California constitutions. The four-stage "resilience roadmap" for reopening is now in Stage 2 and permits many restaurants, retailers and others to welcome customers, but the tasting rooms at Caymus and other Napa wineries are unfairly excluded from this reopening stage, according to the suit.
"The governor and the state public health officer have an obligation to promulgate orders that treat like businesses in a like manner. As applied to Caymus, and over 400 other wineries with facilities in Napa County, the ... orders fail to do so," the suit said. "Run-of-the-mill retailers like toy stores may reopen. Restaurants offering indoor food service may reopen. Wineries that provide 'sit-down, dine-in meals' may reopen. But wineries dedicated to wine tasting, like Caymus, may not."
The suit alleges that California's recent reopening orders specifically harm Napa County wineries because county law prohibits wineries from offering full meal service. In addition, it asserts that the county is now allowing wineries to expand their outdoor tasting spaces so they can accommodate social distancing, a practice that would align with the state's coronavirus safety orders.
Newsom's first COVID-19 executive order on March 19 directed Californians except for essential workers to stay at home, and Angell on May 7 issued guidance for reopening sectors of the state's economy during Stage 2, the suit said.
According to the suit, Angell then provided guidance on May 12 for dine-in restaurants in counties that have received state approval, but the guidance said, "Brewpubs, breweries, bars, pubs, craft distilleries, and wineries should remain closed until those establishments are allowed to resume modified or full operation unless they are offering sit-down, dine-in meals. Alcohol can only be sold in the same transaction as a meal."
This order is of no help to Napa County's wineries, which are prohibited under the county's 1990 Winery Definition Ordinance No. 947 from offering food service, the suit said.
Chuck Wagner, founder and president of Caymus Vineyards, said in a statement that if it's safe for California restaurants and other wineries to serve meals, it's "undeniably safe" for Napa's wineries to open for tastings.
"Our lawsuit makes a simple demand — that we be treated fairly and equally," Wagner said. "We take public health laws seriously, and we're not asking for special treatment."
The suit seeks a court order declaring that Caymus' and other Napa wineries' exclusion from California's Stage 2 reopening constitutes a violation of their rights under the U.S. and state constitutions, and that Caymus is entitled to compensation for its economic losses due to the state's taking of its property.
A lawyer for Caymus, Thomas A. Harvey of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP, told Law360 in an email Friday that Caymus supports the state's effort to keep Californians safe but believes it should revise the Phase 2 order to include all wineries.
"Restaurants, retail and wineries that offer dine-in meals are permitted to reopen," Harvey said. "The current order punishes Caymus and other Napa wineries because — unlike neighboring wineries in Sonoma — they are not allowed to offer dine-in meals. There's no rational basis for that distinction. If anything, the health order has it backwards."
A representative for the state declined to comment Friday, saying it does not comment on pending litigation.
Caymus is represented by Thomas A. Harvey and Philip D.W. Miller of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP.
Counsel information for the governor's office was not available.
The case is Caymus Vineyards v. Newsom et al., case number 3:20-cv-03569, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
--Editing by Gemma Horowitz.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
