: [1]-An appeal and cross-appeal were timely under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(C), which applied because a minute order that was neither file stamped nor entitled "notice of entry" was not, under rule 8.104(e), and Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(2), an appealable order; [2]-Because a postjudgment, independent action to establish alter ego liability for a judgment on a contract was itself an action on the contract under Civ. Code, § 1717, regardless of the procedural vehicle, prevailing party attorney fees were available to a business owner who defeated an alter ego claim that followed a contract judgment against some of the owner's business entities; [3]-The trial court had jurisdiction because another court's retention of jurisdiction over a settlement agreement pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, did not implicate the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction.
Judgment affirmed.
By default, respondent district attorney obtained a permanent injunction in the Superior Court of Yolo County, California, against a street gang. Appellants Company acquisition checklist, four men served with the injunction, filed a motion to set it aside, alleging that the injunction was void for lack of proper notice. The trial court found that they lacked standing to attack the injunction because they did not admit gang membership. Appellants sought review.
The evidence revealed a level of gang criminality plaguing the city that might well have justified injunctive relief. However, the court held that the injunction could not stand because the district attorney failed to show the gang was an unincorporated association for the purpose of service, pursuant to Corp. Code, §§ 18035, subd. (a), 18220, and, in any event, the district attorney did not take steps reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. The district attorney served only a single gang member of unknown rank, trusting that he would spread the word. However, when he was served, the member immediately said he would not appear in the proceeding. Accordingly, even if service on the member complied with state law regarding service of process, the service on him alone was not reasonably calculated to apprise the gang and its other members of the pending action. Even though appellants were not named in the complaint and did not admit membership in the gang, they were sufficiently aggrieved by the injunction served on them to confer standing to attack it.
The court reversed the trial court's order with directions to grant the motion to set aside the judgment granting the permanent injunction.