To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
As we wait for the winery lawsuit appeals process to move through the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, things have been happening behind the scenes this year. Let’s recap with some updates.
Six years ago, the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP) filed a federal lawsuit against Peninsula Township over zoning restrictions that prohibit, among other things, paid private events such as weddings and amplified music, full restaurant service including catering and food trucks, full alcohol service, extended hours through 2 a.m., and unlimited grape/juice imports for winemaking. They also noted that ordinance wording about agricultural events such as cooking classes and other meetings was confusing.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
After being denied the right to intervene by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan in Kalamazoo, Protect the Peninsula (PTP) appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, which granted that right.
In July 2025, the court delivered a $50 million judgment for WOMP, but the ruling did not grant the wineries what they originally asked for, including the ability to host weddings and operate as event centers. Peninsula Township, Protect the Peninsula, and WOMP all filed appeals with the 6th Circuit Court, where the appeals remain pending. We’ll call this lawsuit WOMP1.
In November 2025, a second lawsuit was filed by Bonobo, Bowers Harbor Vineyard, and other wineries in the Kalamazoo court. We’ll call this lawsuit WOMP2. The wineries claimed to have won event center rights in the first lawsuit. PTP once again filed to intervene in the second lawsuit, but was denied by the Kalamazoo court again.
PTP then appealed to the Cincinnati court, requesting expedited review to prevent further delays. That request to expedite has been granted.
Here’s an outline of recent lawsuit activities, as noted in PTP’s August 10, 2026 newsletter:
• On May 11, 2026, Judge Paul K. Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan ruled that the latest wineries case can proceed, rejecting Peninsula Township’s request to dismiss the case.
• On June 9, PTP filed a motion to intervene in the case.
• On June 16, Peninsula Township requested a stay of the case pending resolution of the WOMP appeal, because the two cases overlap.
• On June 22, the wineries filed a brief opposing PTP’s motion for intervention. They argued that PTP’s Joint Defense Agreement (JDA) with the Township in the original WOMP case was a reason to deny intervention to PTP.
• On June 26, the wineries and the Township filed their proposed scheduling (Joint Status Report).
• On June 30, the wineries filed their opposition to the Township’s request for a stay of the case.
• On July 8, Judge Maloney ordered PTP to address the wineries’ argument about how the JDA relates to PTP intervention, noting the JDA is redacted.
• On July 9, Judge Maloney had a telephone “prehearing” conference with lawyers for the wineries and Township (not including PTP) about the case schedule.
• On July 22, PTP filed a reply addressing the wineries’ arguments explaining why the JDA is irrelevant to intervention. PTP also offered to provide Judge Maloney with an unredacted version of the JDA.
• On August 4, the wineries filed a response opposing PTP’s offer to provide the judge with an unredacted JDA, saying that preventing the wineries from seeing the contents of the JDA would be “extraordinary” and “fundamentally unfair.” (From PTP: “It is a noteworthy irony that the wineries in the original WOMP case kept secret from PTP all documents, depositions, and reports related to their demand for $200+ million damages. They even kept those documents secret from the elected Township Board members all the way up to trial.”)
• On August 5, Peninsula Township filed a response supporting PTP’s position on the Joint Defense Agreement because it is supported by Sixth Circuit caselaw.
Stay tuned for more lawsuit news as the case progresses. The parties expect to present oral arguments in Cincinnati before the end of this year.
Read all winery lawsuit stories and opinion pieces here.
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
What could possibly go wrong? ( with PTP inserting themselves into another Peninsula Twp lawsuit). The good news is that they cannot add to the their debit judgement against us citizens that already stands at $49 Million because WOMP is not asking for damages. A larger question is how is it fair that a group, reported to have approximately 10/11 members can run rough shod over and above 6000 of us citizens with a Joint Defense Agreement that was signed without any of us citizens being able to see the 17 redacted clauses of the agreement either before or after the agreement was signed a few years ago. And it was kept secret from us for over a year. Dont forget that 3 present board members were part of the board when this secret document was signed.
Secret documents… this is not a good look PTP. What are you hiding?
What is womp hiding with their settlement demands
A lot of citizens of Old Mission fervently support PTP and its endeavors. I am one of them.
A larger question is how a group of 10 or so people (womp) can run rough shod over the community and hold us hostage. Also, the original demand was $200m and ptp involvement helped reduce that, so there’s that