Case 4:20-cv-03569-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`THOMAS A. HARVEY (State Bar No. 235342)
`PHILIP D.W. MILLER (State Bar No. 280537)
`COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000
`San Francisco, California 94104-5500
`Telephone: 415.391.4800
`Facsimile: 415.989.1663
`Email: ef-tah@cpdb.com
`ef-pdm@cpdb.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`CAYMUS VINEYARDS
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`CAYMUS VINEYARDS,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as
`Governor of California; and SONIA Y.
`ANGELL, in her official capacity as
`California State Public Health Officer,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Caymus Vineyards (“Caymus”) for its complaint against defendants Governor
`Gavin Newsom and State Public Health Officer Sonia Y. Angell, alleges as follows:
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
` California has begun to reopen various sectors of its economy following Governor
`Gavin Newsom’s March 4, 2020 Order in response to the threat of COVID-19. The Governor has
`adopted a four-stage “resilience roadmap” for reopening “non-essential” businesses throughout the
`state. Today, California is in “Stage 2,” during which the Governor’s Orders permit a wide array
`of businesses to reopen, including retailers, restaurants, personal services, and childcare.
`2.
`Caymus is one of the most celebrated winemakers in California. A leader in the
`state’s $40 billion wine industry, Caymus is world famous for its Special Selection Cabernet
`16903.005 4831-2971-9229.14
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104-5500
`
`415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
`
`COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-03569-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`Sauvignon, the only wine ever honored twice as Wine Spectator magazine’s “Wine of the Year.”
`With all of its success, Caymus remains a family-run business.
`3.
`Along with nearly every other winery in California, Caymus operates a tasting
`room and outdoor tasting areas on its premises, at which guests may sample its wines. Tasting
`rooms are a critical aspect of most winery retail operations, because they are generally the only
`venue in which a consumer can appraise the wines available for sale.
`4.
`California’s recent Orders permit the reopening of the state’s indoor on-premises
`retail operations, including “Bookstores, Jewelry stores, Toy stores, Clothing and shoe stores,
`Home and furnishing stores, Sporting goods stores, [and] Florists.” Those Orders also now
`include places of worship throughout the state, and barber shops and hair salons in many counties.
`5.
`These reopening Orders have also broadened the scope of allowed restaurant
`services: restaurants in most counties may now provide food service not only for curbside pickup,
`but also for “sit-down, dine-in meals.”
`6.
`The treatment of winery retail tasting room operations, however, has been different.
`The orders permit the reopening of winery tasting rooms if, and only if, they also provide “sit
`down, dine-in meals.” The Orders provide no explanation for this requirement. Any winery that
`does not—or, under local ordinances, cannot—provide such meals may not reopen.
`7.
`The Governor and the State Public Health Officer have an obligation to promulgate
`orders that treat like businesses in a like manner.
`8.
`As applied to Caymus, and over 400 other wineries with facilities in Napa County,
`the Governor’s and State Public Health Officer’s Orders fail to do so. 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.
`9.
`Caymus supports the necessary work of public health officials in promoting the
`health and safety of Californians, and of taking responsible measures to reduce the risk of
`transmission of the novel coronavirus. The law, though, must be applied fairly and equally to all
`businesses.
`16903.005 4831-2971-9229.14
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104-5500
`
`415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
`
`COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-03569-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`10.
`Caymus does not seek to insulate itself or its fellow wineries from the State’s
`general public health guidelines. To the contrary, Caymus supports those guidelines and seeks to
`incorporate them into its business. Defendants cannot offer a good reason for failing to trust
`wineries to follow health guidelines in their indoor and outdoor tasting areas, even while they trust
`toy stores, restaurants, and florists to do the same.
`11.
`Caymus brings this action to ensure that it, and wineries like it, are treated equally
`to other similarly-situated businesses. As retailers, restaurants, and wineries providing dine-in
`meals are permitted to reopen, so should Caymus.
`PARTIES
`12.
`Plaintiff Caymus Vineyards is a California corporation headquartered in
`Rutherford, California that owns and operates a winery and tasting room with indoor and outdoor
`facilities. Caymus makes world-renowned wines.
`13.
`Defendant Gavin Newsom is a party to this action in his official capacity as the
`Governor of California. The California Constitution vests the “supreme executive power of the
`State” in the Governor, who “shall see that the law is faithfully executed.” Cal. Const. Art. V, § 1.
`Defendant Newsom issued Executive Order N-60-20 on May 4, 2020, directing the State Public
`Health Officer to establish criteria and procedures for reopening businesses throughout the state
`following the state of emergency found to exist in California as a result of COVID-19.
`14.
`Defendant Sonia Y. Angell is a party to this action in her official capacity as State
`Public Health Officer and Director of the California Department of Public Health. On
`May 7, 2020, Dr. Angell issued an Order providing that she “will progressively designate sectors,
`businesses, establishments, or activities that may reopen with certain modifications based on
`public health and safety needs . . . .”
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`15.
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted in this action
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the Due Process and Equal
`Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment
`to the United States Constitution.
`16903.005 4831-2971-9229.14
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104-5500
`
`415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
`
`COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-03569-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`16.
`Jurisdiction is also appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3)
`and (4) to redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
`custom or usage, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution, and to secure
`equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights.
`17.
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims asserted under
`California’s Constitution, statutes, and regulations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because
`Caymus’ state constitutional claims are so related to its federal claims that they form part of the
`same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
`18.
`The Northern District of California is the appropriate venue for this action pursuant
`to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (2) because it is a District in which Defendants maintain offices,
`exercise their authority in their official capacities, and have enforced the Orders at issue in this
`case.
`
`19.
`There is a present and actual controversy between the parties.
`20.
`The relief requested is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202
`(declaratory judgment), 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (injunctive relief), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C.
`§ 1988 (right to costs, including attorneys’ fees).
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`21.
`The events giving rise to this action occurred in Napa County, California. This
`action should therefore be assigned to the San Francisco Division or the Oakland Division
`pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-2(c) and (d).
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`The State Public Health Orders
`22.
`On March 19, 2020, Defendant Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20, directing
`Californians to stay at home except as required to maintain continuity of operations for certain
`essential sectors of the economy.
`23.
`Defendant Newsom defined California’s reopening plans in guidance titled
`“California’s Pandemic Roadmap.” The Roadmap identified four stages of reopening, including a
`///
`16903.005 4831-2971-9229.14
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104-5500
`
`415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
`
`COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-03569-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`Stage 2 for the “reopening of lower risk workplaces and other spaces,” and a Stage 3 for
`“reopening of higher-risk workspaces and other spaces.”
`24.
`On May 4, 2020, Defendant Newsom issued Executive Order N-60-20 concerning
`the second and third stages of the Roadmap. The Order directed the State Public Health Officer to
`“establish criteria and procedures . . . to determine whether and how particular local jurisdictions
`may implement public health measures that depart from the statewide directives,” specifically
`“measures less restrictive than any public health measures implemented on a statewide basis.” It
`empowered the State Public Health officer to “from time to time and as she deems necessary . . .
`revise the criteria and procedures set forth” in the Order.
`25.
`On May 7, 2020, Defendant Angell issued an Order pursuant to Executive Order
`N-60-20. The Order states: “[t]he low and stable data reported by some local health officers in
`their local health jurisdictions, combined with sufficient COVID-19 preparedness, justifies
`allowance for some variation in the speed with which some local health jurisdictions will be able
`to move through the phases of Stage 2.”
`26.
`Defendant Angell therefore provided that she “will progressively designate sectors,
`businesses, establishments, or activities that may reopen with certain modifications, based on
`public health and safety needs.” The Order vowed to “add additional sectors, businesses,
`establishments, or activities at a pace designed to protect public health and safety.” Approved
`businesses would be listed at the website https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap/.
`27.
`Defendant Angell then issued guidance for reopening sectors of the state’s
`economy during Stage 2, including “auto dealerships,” “construction,” “retail,” and various other
`categories.
`The Orders for Dine-in Restaurants and In-Store Retail
`28.
`Among the Stage 2 sectors for which Defendant Angell adopted guidance was
`“dine-in restaurants.” Dated May 12, 2020, this Order provides that restaurants may open for
`dine-in service in counties that have received state approval. The Order is intended to provide
`“guidance for dine-in restaurants, brewpubs, craft distilleries, breweries, bars, pubs, and wineries
`to support a safe, clean environment for workers and customers.” It includes directions on topics
`16903.005 4831-2971-9229.14
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104-5500
`
`415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
`
`COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-03569-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`such as “cleaning and disinfecting protocols,” “physical distancing guidelines,” and “individual
`control measures and screening.”
`29.
`The May 12 Order directs that: “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.” (Emphasis in original.)
`30.
`The Order continues: “Brewpubs, breweries, bars, pubs, craft distilleries, and
`wineries that do not provide sit-down meals themselves, but can contract with another vendor to
`do so, can serve dine-in meals provided both businesses follow the guidance below and alcohol is
`only sold in the same transaction as a meal.”
`31.
`Unless wineries serve such sit-down, dine-in meals, the Guidance categorizes them
`as a form of forbidden “hospitality services,” akin to bars and lounges.1 In doing so, the
`guidelines lump winery tasting rooms into business sectors such as “Nightclubs,” “Concert
`venues,” “Live Audience Sports,” “Festivals,” and “Theme Parks.”2
`32.
`In sum, while breweries, craft distilleries, and wineries that offer sit-down, dine-in
`meals may reopen, those dedicated only to tasting areas—like Caymus—may not.
`33. While the May 12 Order purports to give wineries the option of contracting with a
`vendor to provide on-site meals, that provision is of no value to Caymus, or nearly any other
`winery in Napa County. With limited exceptions, Napa County’s 1990 Winery Definition
`Ordinance (Ordinance No. 947) prohibits all Napa wineries from offering food service.3
`
`1 See “County variance info,” available at https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/.
`2 Id; see also David Gelles, Coronavirus Shut Down the ‘Experience Economy.’ Can It Come
`Back?', N.Y. Times, May 20, 2020, available at
`https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/business/public-gathering-events-coronavirus.html.
`3 A May 20, 2020 letter from David Morrison, Director of Napa County’s Planning, Building and
`Environmental Services Department to wine industry representatives confirms that “the Napa
`County General Plan and Zoning Code prohibit dine-in meals, either directly by wineries or by
`contract with another vendor, and wineries and tasting rooms therefore do not fit within the
`guidance currently provided for counties in deeper Stage 2.”
`
`16903.005 4831-2971-9229.14
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104-5500
`
`415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
`
`COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-03569-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`34.
`In neighboring Sonoma County and other counties around the state, where wineries
`are permitted to offer sit-down meals, wineries have received permission from the California
`Department of Public Health to reopen.4
`35.
`In other states like Oregon, winery tasting rooms have reopened while adhering to
`the same social distancing guidelines as restaurants.5 In fact, North Carolina promulgated
`guidance specifically to allow the reopening of wineries, recognizing that they are distinct from
`“Phase 3” businesses such as bars or lounges. The guidance treats winery tasting rooms like other
`“Phase 2” businesses such as retailers and restaurants.6
`36.
`On May 25, 2020, the California Department of Public Health announced that
`guidelines adopted for retailers, whose operations had previously been allowed in counties that
`met certain benchmarks, now would apply state-wide. The Department’s press release stated:
`“Retail can now open for in-store shopping statewide.” Yet winery tasting rooms, like Caymus’,
`continue to be excluded.
`The Orders Treat Like Business Unequally
`37.
`There is no rational basis for the distinction Defendants have drawn. They allow
`wineries offering sit-down, dine-in meals (or contracting with third party vendors to do so) to
`reopen, while wineries with dedicated tasting rooms only—like Caymus—cannot.
`
`
`4 See Esther Mobley, California Wineries Slowly Begin to Reopen Tasting Rooms, But in Altered
`State, San Francisco Chronicle, May 23, 2020, available at
`https://www.sfchronicle.com/wine/article/California-wineries-say-they-re-safer-than-
`15287337.php (“The initial phase allows restaurants to resume dine-in service, but does not allow
`wineries to reopen their tasting rooms unless they offer full meals . . . . Some Sonoma County
`wineries will introduce similar concepts this weekend, after receiving permission on Friday from
`the California Department of Public Health to begin offering outdoor sit-down meals.”).
`5 See Michael Alberty, Oregon Winery Tasting Rooms Prepare to Reopen to the Public After
`Coronavirus Shutdown, The Oregonian, May 16, 2020, available at
`https://www.oregonlive.com/wine/2020/05/oregon-winery-tasting-rooms-prepare-to-reopen-to-
`the-public-after-coronavirus-shutdown.html.
`6 See T. Keung Hui, Drew Jackson & Catherine Muccigrosso, Breweries, wineries, distilleries can
`reopen in Phase Two after NC’s new guidance, The News & Observer, May 22, 2020, available at
`https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article242944756.html.
`
`16903.005 4831-2971-9229.14
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104-5500
`
`415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
`
`COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-03569-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`38.
`Indeed, the food service requirement likely increases the public health risk. Food
`service increases the number of people and surfaces with which customers come into contact,
`introduces risk of the virus’ spread associated with food sourcing and preparation, and introduces
`risks specific to interior, dine-in spaces.
`39.
`The option of contracting with an outside vendor to provide food service—even if
`it were allowed—would add still further risk. The process would complicate the wineries’ tasting
`operation, crowd in additional service personnel and equipment in facilities that do not have
`kitchens, and add complexity at a time when wineries are striving to reduce risk.
`40.
`In this sense, the Orders actually undermine the unique advantages that wineries
`enjoy that protect public health. Unlike indoor retail services or dine-in restaurants, wineries are
`naturally located in large outdoor spaces. Their product comes pre-packaged, and many wineries
`already offer outdoor tasting areas and take reservations to limit crowds. They are suited to
`outdoor operations, allowing safe social distancing practices.7
`41.
`Caymus is prepared to take all appropriate steps to protect the health and safety of
`visitors to its winery, and is committed to following guidelines and recommendations to maintain
`social distancing and decrease the risk of transmission of the novel coronavirus. In addition to
`following state and county public health guidelines, industry organizations such as the Wine
`Institute and Napa Valley Vintners have prepared guidelines for phased reopening of winery
`operations. These reopening protocols include provisions regarding sanitation requirements,
`social distancing and occupancy guidelines, employee wellness screenings, and protocols specific
`to tasting rooms.
`
`
`7 See Esther Mobley, The Convoluted Logic Behind California’s Winery Tasting Room Reopening
`Plan, San Francisco Chronicle, May 28, 2020, available at
`https://www.sfchronicle.com/wine/article/The-convoluted-logic-behind-California-s-winery-
`15298857.php ([O]ur state government’s logic is inconsistent.”). See also supra note 4 (“We have
`the capacity to do outdoors. We have the capacity to do distancing in our seating . . . . The only
`difference is that we wouldn’t be serving food, which to me would be safer.”).
`
`16903.005 4831-2971-9229.14
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104-5500
`
`415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
`
`COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-03569-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`42.
`Caymus has adopted and pledged to implement these protocols upon reopening its
`winery tasting room. Caymus’ protocols comply with all applicable state and federal safety
`guidance, including guidance from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), Centers
`for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Occupational Safety and Health Administration
`(OSHA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The protocols specifically comply
`with the State Public Health Officer’s guidance for retailers, restaurants, and wineries with dine-in
`food service.
`43.
`Caymus does not quarrel with Defendants’ goals of protecting the health and safety
`of Californians and mitigating the risk of the spread of COVID-19. But having concluded that it is
`in the interests and welfare of Californians to permit the reopening of businesses, Defendants must
`apply the law to similar businesses in a similar fashion.
`44.
`Having ordered that indoor retailers and restaurants and wineries with dine-in food
`service may reopen, Defendants violate the guarantee of equal treatment under the law by refusing
`to permit Caymus—and all other wineries that operate tasting rooms without dine-in food
`service—from reopening.
`The County of Napa Supports Caymus’ Reopening, But is Stymied by the State’s Guidelines
`45.
`The plight of wineries like Caymus is not lost on the County of Napa.
`46. When a county applies to move into Stage 2, its local public health officer must
`“certify through submission of a written attestation” that the county has met the state’s readiness
`criteria, “including guidance to be issued by the county and detailed plans, and that the county is
`designed to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.”
`47.
`On May 18, 2020, Karen Relucio, M.D., Napa County’s Public Health Officer,
`submitted to the state Department of Public Health the county’s COVID-19 attestation report.
`Dr. Relucio certified that “Napa County has met the readiness criteria outlined by CDPH designed
`to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.”
`48.
`Napa County’s attestation is supported by a May 18, 2020 letter from the County
`Board of Supervisors. The letter states: “The Napa County Board of Supervisors support the need
`to protect vulnerable populations, continue social distancing, and monitor indicators that may
`16903.005 4831-2971-9229.14
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104-5500
`
`415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
`
`COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-03569-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`trigger the need to reinstate more restrictive measures. At the same time, it is important to find a
`balance that allows for some businesses to reopen while ensuring the community’s health . . . .
`[W]e strongly encourage and support the inclusion of Wineries and Tasting Rooms as
`businesses that the State deems eligible for reopening in Stage 2.” (Emphasis added.)
`49.
`Napa’s Board of Supervisors thus concludes that, based on all the relevant factors,
`it is appropriate to allow wineries and tasting rooms to reopen as part of Stage 2.
`50.
`The Board also has taken concrete action to facilitate the safe reopening of
`wineries. On May 19, 2020, it approved a resolution for “Maintaining Safe and Healthy Business
`Operations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Among other things, it authorized “temporary on-
`site areas” for wineries “to accommodate physical distancing requirements,” and provided for
`expanded tasting room hours to permit a lower concentration of visitors at a given time.
`51.
`The staff report recommending adoption of the resolution observed that “The
`County understands that at the present time, tasting rooms and wineries are not eligible to re-open
`under Stage 2 of the Governor’s Resilience Roadmap . . . . This policy is proposed with the
`understanding that any provisions that may apply to wineries and tasting rooms are contingent
`upon the State’s decision to allow wineries as a permitted use.”
`52.
`In short, the County of Napa, like Caymus, is ready to support the safe reopening of
`wineries but is stymied by the State’s current guidance.
`53.
`Defendant Angell’s Orders should follow the recommendations of the county
`supervisors and public health officials and allow wineries and tasting rooms to reopen.
`Caymus is Suffering Irreparable Harm that Increases with Each Passing Day
`54. While restaurants and wineries offering sit-down meals are permitted to reopen,
`Caymus continues to suffer the loss of revenue from its tasting room and associated wine sales.
`Caymus has suffered significant economic losses related to the ordered closure of its tasting room.
`Those losses increase each day and continue to rise as the summer approaches. And Caymus has
`incurred non-pecuniary damages as other wineries are permitted to reopen while uncertainty and
`confusion impact Caymus’ operations and industry and consumer reputation.
`///
`16903.005 4831-2971-9229.14
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104-5500
`
`415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
`
`COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-03569-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`55.
`By their forced closures, Defendants are causing considerable damage to Caymus
`and similarly situated wineries: injuries to their businesses, reputations, and relationships with
`their customers, vendors and employees.
`56.
`Neither Defendants nor the State of California has offered compensation to Caymus
`in exchange for the regulatory taking of Caymus’ property.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment)
`
`57.
`Caymus incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth
`in all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`58.
`“When those who appear similarly situated are nevertheless treated differently, the
`Equal Protection Clause requires at least a rational reason for the difference, to ensure that all
`persons subject to legislation or regulation are indeed being ‘treated alike, under like
`circumstances and conditions.’” Engquist v. Ore. Dep’t of Agric., 128 S. Ct. 2146, 2153 (2008).
`59.
`Strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause applies where the classification
`impinges on fundamental rights, including the right to due process. San Antonio Indep. Sch.
`Dist. v. Rodriguez, 93 S. Ct. 1278, 1288 (1973). As described more fully below, Defendants have
`also violated Caymus’ due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, thus the application
`of strict scrutiny to the Governor’s and State Public Health Officer’s Orders is appropriate.
`60.
`Here, Defendants’ Orders, which distinguish between restaurants and wineries that
`offer “sit-down, dine-in meals,” on the one hand, and those like Caymus that operate tasting rooms
`without food service, on the other hand, are unsupported by any rational reason. Indeed, refusing
`to permit Caymus to reopen while permitting businesses in the former class to do so likely
`increases the risk of transmission of the novel coronavirus.
`61.
`In addition, Defendants’ Orders cannot satisfy strict scrutiny because the
`classifications at issue are arbitrary, and are not narrowly tailored to further compelling
`government interests.
`///
`///
`16903.005 4831-2971-9229.14
`11
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104-5500
`
`415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
`
`COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-03569-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`62.
`Accordingly, Caymus respectfully seeks a declaration that the Order prohibiting
`Caymus’ winery tasting room from reopening violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
`Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
`63.
`Caymus has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm
`unless Defendants are enjoined from implementing and enforcing the Orders prohibiting Caymus’
`winery tasting room from reopening.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment)
`
`64.
`Caymus incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth
`in all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`65.
`The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o State
`shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” A State
`violates this guarantee by depriving one of property under a law “so vague that it fails to give
`ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes, or so standardless that it invites arbitrary
`enforcement.” Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2556 (2015).
`66.
`Here, Defendants’ Orders distinguishing among the types of retail businesses,
`restaurants, and wineries that are permitted to reopen are so standardless as to invite arbitrary
`enforcement. There is no sound basis on which to discriminate among wineries that offer no food
`service, those that provide dine-in meals, and those that contract with vendors to do so. Any
`enforcement of the Orders that prohibit certain of these facilities from reopening, but permit
`others, is arbitrary, and constitutes a violation of Caymus’ right to due process.
`67.
`In addition, Defendants have violated the Due Process Clause insomuch as their
`Orders fail to provide any meaningful procedure for challenging the determination that a business’
`reopening should fall within Stage 2 or Stage 3 of the Governor’s “resilience roadmap.” Logan v.
`Zimmerman Brush Co., 102 S. Ct. 1148, 1155 (1982).
`68.
`Accordingly, Caymus respectfully seeks a declaration that the Order prohibiting
`Caymus’ winery tasting room from reopening violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
`Amendment to the United States Constitution.
`16903.005 4831-2971-9229.14
`12
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104-5500
`
`415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
`
`COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-03569-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`69.
`Caymus has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm
`unless Defendants are enjoined from implementing and enforcing the Orders prohibiting Caymus’
`winery tasting room from reopening.
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment)
`
`70.
`Caymus incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth
`in all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`71.
`The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that “nor shall private property
`be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
`72.
`The actions taken by Defendants have resulted in Caymus’ being deprived of the
`economically beneficial and productive use of its property including, without limitation, its use
`licenses, business property, and opportunity to sell its wine in its retail tasting room, resulting in
`the involuntary closing of its business.
`73.
`Defendants’ Orders and the enforcement thereof has caused a regulatory taking of
`Plaint