Barrett

Barrett v. County of Napa

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 22, 20193:18-cv-06124California2,050 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

19 In this action challenging a county ordinance regulating the use of helicopters for 20 agricultural purposes, plaintiffs move for summary judgment and defendants move for judgment 21 on the pleadings. Both motions are DENIED. 22

STATEMENT

23 A prior order has set forth the background of this case (Dkt. No. 49). In brief, in June 24 2018, Napa County passed an initiative measure, called “Measure D,” that restricted the use of 25 helicopters for agricultural operations. The measure was adopted as Napa County Ordinance 26 No. 2018-02 with the stated purpose of preserving Napa County’s “rural, agricultural and 27 peaceful character” by “prohibit[ing] any new personal use airports or heliports” and 28 “clarif[ying] the limited circumstances under which helicopters may take-off and land in the 1 The ordinance specifically modified Section 18.120.010 of the Napa County Code, 2 which listed exceptions to use limitations. Before the enactment of the ordinance, Section 3 18.120.010 explicitly allowed “[h]elicopter takeoffs and landings solely in support of direct 4 agricultural production activities such as aerial spraying and frost protection” without a user…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.