Case: Sigma-Beta-XI v. Riverside
5:18-cv-01399 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Filed Date: July 1, 2018
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On July 1 2018, Sigma Beta Xi (a non-profit organization) and three children filed this class action in the Central District of California. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, National Center for Youth Law, and private counsel, sued the County of Riverside under state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as nominal damages. They claimed that Riverside's Youth Accountability Team (YAT) program, which was an alleged probation supervision program, violated their constitutional and state rights.
Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants did not give children adequate notice of charges against them, and used coercion and other misleading tactics to induce them to enter the YAT program without their informed consent. As part of this program, the defendants allegedly searched the homes, belongings, and persons of the children in the YAT program and prohibited children in the YAT program from associating with anyone the program did not approve of. Notably, the complaint contended that the YAT program had a significant adverse impact on Black and Latinx children. The plaintiffs requested injunctive relief to enjoin the defendant from engaging in the YAT program practices that violated the plaintiffs' rights.
On September 5, the defendant filed an answer to the complaint, denying generally and specifically the plaintiff's allegations. They stated that the purpose of the YAT program was to "divert certain youth from the juvenile justice system and instead handle them in an informal, treatment-oriented manner, including, without limitation, the provision of school attendance and behavior monitoring, mentoring, and involvement in pro-social activities" and not, as plaintiffs claimed, to "target, ensnare, and discriminate against children in...schools in Riverside County, by stripping them of their constitutional rights and treating them like criminals."
The individual plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to be certified as a class on September 13, 2018. On September 17, 2018, the court granted their motion after determining that the children satisfied the necessary elements of a class (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy). The class was certified as: "All children in Riverside County who have been referred to the Riverside County Youth Accountability Team ("YAT") program pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 601, and who had either been placed on a YAT probation contract or had been referred but not yet placed on a YAT probation contract."
The case was referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution in December of 2018. On January 2, 2019, the parties jointly stipulated to a protective order for the youth plaintiffs during the course of this case. After out of court negotiations, the parties moved for class action settlement on July 24, 2019.
The proposed settlement agreement mandated the following:
1) Narrowing the category of youth who fall under the jurisdiction of Welfare & Institutions § 602 and will be enrolled in a Welfare & Institutions Code § 654 program or referred for prosecution under Welfare & Institutions Code § 60
2) Defendants agree not to seek or accept referrals from any source regarding any youth
under the age of 18 into the YAT program
3) Creation of a presumption for the protection of youth charged with school disruption, possession of alcohol, cigarettes, or marijuana, and possession of a laser pointer or graffiti tools. The Probation Department will counsel and close these matters or refer the youth to a community-based organization
4) Addition of defense counsel to the YAT team to legally advocate for the youth
5) Improvements in the risk-assessment tool used by the YAT program
6) Improvements in communication with youth and their parents/guardians about the responsibilities and expectations involved in the program, including an updated contract
7) Updates in records keeping, data tracking, and personnel policies and training
8) The addition of community representatives to the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee
The agreement appointed Scott MacDonald and Naomi Goldstein as third-party monitors to report annually on the settlement progress. The agreement is set to expire after 5 years, and the court will retain jurisdiction during that time. The hearing for final approval of the agreement is set for June 20, 2020, although it may be subject to further postponement due to the COVID-19 public health emergency. This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Esther Vinarov (9/28/2018)
Alex Moody (5/27/2020)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7333162/parties/sigma-beta-xi-inc-v-county-of-riverside/
Bernal, Jesus Gilberto (California)
Comstock, Hannah Karin (California)
Deleon, Melissa Joyce (California)
Feathers, Andrea (California)
Brown, James E. (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7333162/sigma-beta-xi-inc-v-county-of-riverside/
Last updated June 20, 2026, 5:47 a.m.
Docket for: Sigma Beta Xi, Inc. v. County of Riverside
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 1, 2018
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All children in Riverside County who have been referred to the Riverside County Youth Accountability Team ("YAT") program pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 601, and who had either been placed on a YAT probation contract or had been referred but not yet placed on a YAT probation contract.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
County
Riverside County
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
Central District of California 5:18-cv-01399
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Affected Race(s):
Case Summary of Sigma-Beta-XI v. Riverside, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/16717/ (last updated 5/27/2020).