Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Wednesday, April 23, 2025

View Back issues

Attorneys in viral California goat case face skeptical judge

Some defendants settled last year with Jessica Long and her daughter over Cedar the goat, though others remain.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge presiding over the infamous case of a goat auctioned at a California fair — and later slaughtered — has much to chew on after a Thursday hearing.

The parties involved in the viral case of Cedar, the goat at the center of a case that involved a former state senator and drew intense media attention, are seeking judgment from a judge before it can reach trial.

For U.S. District Judge Dale Drozd, a major issue boiled down to whether fair officials who had Cedar retrieved and slaughtered received notice that their actions potentially violated the rights of the goat’s owners.

“And that is what I’m focused on at this point and time,” the Barack Obama appointee said. “I haven’t decided anything yet, but I’m telling you what I’m thinking.”

That’s not the only issue Drozd must decide.

The case stems from Jessica Long and her daughter, who put Cedar up for auction at the 2022 North State fair. At the last minute, the daughter opted to pull Cedar from the auction block. That led to accusations of theft from fair officials and legal, contractual questions, along with claims that officials violated Long and her daughter’s due process rights.

Shasta County and its sheriff’s office, along with a lieutenant and two detectives, agreed to settle the case for $300,000 last year. However, some defendants remained: the Shasta Fair and Event Center; Melanie Silva, CEO of the fair district; livestock manager BJ Macfarlane; and Kathie Muse, a 4-H volunteer involved with the fair and who acted as an agent for former state Senator Brian Dahle, who had the winning bid.

All parties in some form asked the judge for summary judgment — a request that he make certain determinations before the case reached a jury. Attorneys appeared Thursday before Drozd to argue their motions.

Long and her daughter want Drozd to find Silva and Macfarlane liable for wrongly seizing the goat and violating their due process. The issue of damages would lie with a jury.

During the hearing, Drozd’s questioning mainly focused on Long’s attorneys as he sought to clarify their arguments.

“This is a plain property dispute,” said attorney Ryan Gordon, who represents Long. Gordon argued that the government must inform people when taking their property with the intent to destroy it. Failing to do that violated his clients’ rights.

Drozd called that “a tough argument.” He noted that the fair has rules for its auction, and Long agreed to those rules.

Gordon countered that minors have the right to disaffirm, or call off any contract. Both mother and daughter owned the goat. No money ever exchanged hands.

“This is why we claim she had the right to disaffirm, because she was the owner,” Gordon said.

His clients also gave fair officials notice about their intention to remove the goat from the auction. Long offered to pay damages. Authorities then violated their due process rights by failing to contact them after seizing the goat and taking it to slaughter, Gordon said.

Drozd questioned the amount of due process required. Gordon said his clients received no notification about Cedar’s seizure. However, attorney John Bridges, representing all defendants except Muse, said Macfarlane exchanged texts about wanting the goat and their intentions. Long sought no injunction to stop him.

Drozd called the due process argument a significant hurdle for Gordon’s clients. He also said it appeared the defendants’ actions stemmed from their belief the goat had been stolen.

“They contacted law enforcement,” the judge added. “Law enforcement reacquired the goat. Law enforcement returned the goat to what they believed were its rightful owners.”

Attorney Vanessa Shakib, also representing Long, called it difficult to believe the defendants considered the goat stolen when phone calls and text messages between the parties show otherwise. She argued the defendants were pushing a “rosy-cheeked” version of what they knew at the time.

“I think this is a case that should appear on the bar exam at some point,” Bridges said.

Categories / Business, Courts, Government

Subscribe to our free newsletters

Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.

Loading...