What is the impact of naming individual members of a criminal gang as defendants in a preliminary injunction?

The court noted the evidence demonstrated it was the gang itself, acting through its membership, which was responsible for the public nuisance to be enjoined. Since the gang itself could have been named as a defendant, the decision to name individual gang members did not change the rule the organization and its individual members were subject to the injunction. The court concluded for "present purposes", i.e., a preliminary injunction, it was enough that sufficient evidence supported the conclusion the gang and its members were responsible for the nuisance and that each of the individual defendants either admitted gang membership or were identified as gang members. (People v. ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 1125.)

3. Discussion