36 Wineries Sue Hundred Acre for $90 Million Over Pickett Fire

Thirty-six wineries and grape growers are demanding $90 million from Hundred Acre Wines, its owner Jayson Woodbridge, and contractor Juan Luis Gutierrez Marfil over the 2025 Pickett Fire in Napa Valley.

The lawsuit landed last Thursday in Napa County Superior Court. It targets one of the valley's luxury producers and, by extension, one of its best-known figures. The stakes are financial and reputational at once.

The fire at the center of the case burned more than 6,800 acres. That single figure frames the whole dispute.

What does the lawsuit allege?

The complaint accuses the defendants of starting a blaze that escaped their control and spread through Pope Valley. The plaintiffs' core language is direct: "as a result of defendants' negligent, reckless, and intentional conduct, the fire quickly spread out of defendants' control."

The filing goes further on consequences. The fire, the plaintiffs say, "damaged or destroyed multiple structures and improvements, and catastrophically impacted the local wine-making industry by decimating plaintiffs' 2025 grape harvest."

That last claim matters most for the damages number. A destroyed harvest is a full year of revenue gone for a grower, not just property damage.

What happened in August 2025?

The Pickett Fire broke out on August 21, 2025, on Hundred Acre's property outside Calistoga. It burned for 17 days before crews contained it.

Cal Fire put the final tally at 6,820 acres, mostly forest and wildland. The same agency estimated $65 million in agricultural damage, according to the Napa Valley Register.

The timeline is short and concrete. One ignition point on a private winery property. Seventeen days of burning. Nearly $100 million in claimed and estimated losses combined.

What do the plaintiffs' lawyers say?

The firm representing the 36 plaintiffs addressed the case bluntly in a statement to The Independent.

"Mr. Gutierrez Marfil, acting at the direction of Mr. Woodbridge, negligently started a fire on the Hundred Acre Winery," the firm said. "Obviously, the defendants are entitled to present any defenses they have in court, but based on the evidence that exists to date (including the criminal complaint filed by the District Attorney's office), we do not believe they have any legitimate bases to avoid liability."

That statement confirms two things. First, a parallel criminal complaint exists, filed by the District Attorney's office. Second, the plaintiffs tried settlement before litigation.

Jon Cadieux, an attorney at the firm, described that effort to The Press Democrat: "Our efforts to resolve the matter informally were unsuccessful. We want to make sure justice is served and our clients are fairly compensated for the significant harm they sustained as a result of the fire that should never have happened."

Where does the case go from here?

The dispute now moves into Napa County Superior Court, where the defense will lay out its argument that the plaintiffs are blaming the wrong crisis — the winery's position, as framed in the case's early coverage, that something other than its conduct explains the disaster.

The structure of the claim raises the pressure. Negligence, recklessness and intentional conduct are separate legal thresholds, and the plaintiffs allege all three. A pending criminal complaint from the District Attorney adds a second track that could shape what evidence surfaces in the civil case.

For Napa's wine industry, the outcome will test who bears the cost when a fire starts on private land and consumes a region's harvest. The $90 million demand is the opening number, not the final one.