Two defendants have filed a countersuit against the woman who removed a goat from California’s Shasta County Fair, claiming she was negligent in breaching the fair’s contract and removing the animal, among other claims.
The countersuit by Melanie Silva, CEO of the 27th District Agricultural Association, and B.J. MacFarlane, fair livestock superintendent, asserts they should be held harmless from any liability when Jessica Long, the mother of the minor who exhibited the removed goat, signed the contract to enter her daughter as an exhibitor. Long is alleged to have removed her daughter’s goat from the fairgrounds before the goat could be sent to a processing facility.
According to the countersuit, Long agreed to the fair’s terms regarding accountability and liability, which stipulated she was the property owner, and agreed to abide by the rules regarding entries in the Shasta County Fair Handbook. The countersuit states that by signing the contract, the person agrees to hold the fair, county and state harmless from any liability, claim, loss or expense resulting from any injury or damage related to participation in the program or event.
The defendants said any damage from the acts that the minor, or anyone else suffered, was due to Long’s conduct and negligence. The defendants assert they believe Long “carelessly, negligently, or in some actionable manner, be it legal or equitable, caused or contributed to some or all of the damages” by removing the goat from the fairgrounds and transferring it to a third party.
Background
Long and her daughter purchased the goat in April 2022 to show as a market goat for the Shasta County Fair Junior Livestock Auction on June 24-25, 2022, as a Cow Creek 4-H Club member.
According to a second amended complaint filed in October 2023 by Long’s attorneys, Long and the minor asked to terminate their participation in the livestock auction before the start and were met with resistance from fair officials who stated the rules prohibited it.
A buyer representative for a California state senator was the highest bidder for the goat at $902. The buyer said the party wanted to donate the goat to a community barbecue.
After the auction, the suit states the minor exercised “her statutory rights” to disaffirm any contract between her and the fair concerning the goat.
On June 26, following the auction, Long removed the goat from the fairgrounds and sent it approximately 200 miles away to a farm in Sonoma County, noting the action would “be a point of controversy” and she “feared that deviating from a 4-H program through resisting the slaughter of livestock would upset other 4-H members and community members.”
The suit continued that fair officials refused to recognize the minor’s rights and insisted the goat must be killed. The suit contends the sale had not occurred, and Long made efforts to pay for any potential losses to the fair association, but officials refused the offer and demanded the goat be returned. The lawsuit said Macfarlane and members of the Shasta Fair Association were unmoved by Long’s pleas, and Silva rejected Long’s offer.
Long sent a notice of intent to sue on June 29, and the suit claims fair officials “elected to avoid the courts and instead resort to the strong-arm tactics involving law enforcement.”
According to the complaint, the sheriff did not refer the matter to the civil court and instead applied for a search warrant for an animal sanctuary in Napa County. The complaint states the search warrant required the sheriff to retain the goat in their possession as required in the penal code.
On July 8, two sheriff deputies drove to Napa County to take back the goat and discovered it was not at the animal sanctuary but at a farm in Sonoma County. Long’s attorneys said the search warrant was for the animal sanctuary in Napa County and not for the farm in Sonoma County. Therefore, the deputies took the goat without authorization.
Claims
Lawyers for Long claim the sheriffs violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by unreasonably searching for the goat when no crime had been committed and no probable cause existed. The suit contends fair officials violated the amendment by seizing and confiscating the goat and disposing of and destroying Long’s property interests in the goat.
They further assert that sheriffs violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the U.S. Constitution by confiscating the goat and then disposing of and destroying the plaintiffs’ property interests without notice or hearing. The suit states once fair officials had possession of the goat they had a constitutional duty to provide notice the property would be destroyed and to provide an opportunity for the plaintiff to be heard.
Lawyers for Long also claim a denial of due process, unreasonable search and seizure under the California Constitution and negligence against all the parties.
The countersuit seeks “indemnification and to be held harmless and safe from any and all liability.” They also seek a declaration from the court for the percentage of fault attributable to them and indemnification from costs of the suit incurred and any other relief the court deems. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
