A federal judge handed Peninsula Township a minor victory last week in its years-long legal fight with the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP), denying an injunction that would have barred the township from restricting food service and other activities at the wineries. But the injunction was just one battle in an ongoing war that now spans five separate lawsuits, with tens of millions of dollars at stake. Is there any end in sight? 

In October 2020, WOMP filed a federal lawsuit against Peninsula Township, alleging township zoning ordinances unfairly and illegally restricted winery operations. Judge Paul Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan has since handed WOMP numerous victories, striking down many of the zoning restrictions in question and collectively awarding the wineries nearly $50 million in damages. The latter ruling, which came down last July, sparked an appeal from Peninsula Township.

WOMP attorney Joseph Infante says the appeal case is in the briefing stages until July and that the argument stage of the case, “if it happens, will be in October or December.” The wineries are trying to get that appeal thrown out, claiming Peninsula Township and Protect the Peninsula (PTP, an intervening third party in the case) appealed some – but not all – of the points from Judge Maloney’s 2025 judgment.

“The main reason for damages in this case was because the guest activity section and other sections of the ordinances were ‘void for vagueness,’” Infante explains. “Judge Maloney found them vague in two different ways: He found the language vague in meaning – essentially, that if you read the words of the ordinance, it's vague because no one knows what it means. But he also found the ordinances ‘vague as applied,’ meaning the way the township applied the ordinances to the wineries was in a vague or arbitrary manner. Those are two different rulings, but on appeal, the township and PTP only appealed the facial vagueness decision, and did not appeal the as-applied decision. Since they didn't appeal everything, it’s our position the decision must be affirmed.”

TJ Andrews, attorney for PTP, calls Infante’s argument “absurd,” noting: “There is a Grand Canyon-sized gulf between the parties in how we interpret what happened, what is law, and how it applies.”

Andrews and Peninsula Township Supervisor Maura Sanders both believe they have the upper hand in the appeal, citing a recent court decision to allow five amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs to be considered. The briefs, which come from groups like the International Municipal Lawyers Association, the American Farmland Trust, and the Michigan Townships Association, argue in the township’s favor.

“I think [the briefs] add a level of weight and consequence, given the number of amici curiae and the breadth of their perspectives on what this case could mean nationally for governing and for zoning in particular,” Andrews says.

In the meantime, four other lawsuits have sprung up.

In the wake of last year’s $49.2 million ruling, Peninsula Township filed claims with three insurers, two of which have sued the township claiming they have “no obligation” to help cover the damages. The first, U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, argues its policy period with the township (July 2013 through July 2014) doesn’t match the damages period identified in the ruling (2017-2022). The second, Emcasco Insurance Company and Employers Mutual Casualty Company, insured Peninsula Township from July 2019 through April 2021, but argues its policies covered issues like injury or property damage, not “zoning or permitting duties.”

Sanders says both cases are pending, and that Peninsula Township is seeking arbitration to settle the dispute with U.S. Specialty Insurance Company. Asked about the third insurance provider and whether any coverage is available through that policy, Sanders tells The Ticker: “Those details aren’t publicly available and I can’t share them.”

Also pending is a malpractice lawsuit Peninsula Township filed in 2024 against two former attorneys, Gregory Meihn and Matthew Wise, who represented the township in the early days of the WOMP lawsuit. Peninsula Township claimed the lawyers’ “failure to timely list one or more experts and timely produce expert reports” forced the township “to bring a proverbial knife to a gunfight in the ongoing litigation.”

Finally, Peninsula Township is facing a second complaint from WOMP, filed last fall after the township sent a letter threatening to shut Bonobo Winery down over zoning violations. The township accused Bonobo of offering “full-service meals” and holding private events, among other zoning violations. WOMP argued Judge Maloney’s previous rulings had already determined the legality of these activities, and asserted the Michigan Liquor Control Code (MLCC) preempts local zoning by allowing “on-premises licensees like wineries to operate restaurants.”

WOMP sought a preliminary injunction as part of the complaint to halt the township from enforcing its zoning restrictions. Judge Maloney last week denied that request, writing that WOMP’s interpretation of MLCC rules “would force local governments to accept wineries operating anything from a movie theater to a nightclub to an industrial feeding operation in the same location.” Such an interpretation, he argued, would “eliminate the consistent principle from state court decisions that local governments may add limitations to what state statutes permit so long as they do not prohibit it outright.”

Sanders hopes the injunction denial will bring everyone back to the bargaining table.

“Sending that letter to Bonobo was our way of asking them to come on in and have a chat with us, and that conversation probably would have been a great first step to help answer some questions [about food service restrictions],” Sanders says. “Their lawsuit basically halted those conversations, but the township has always been ready and willing to sit down and have legitimate discussions about a settlement.”