Appellant and 28 other named gang members were enjoined from engaging in various activities within a designated area of Oceanside. They appealed, arguing that they were denied their right to a jury trial on the issue of gang membership, and by deciding the case based on a preponderance of evidence rather than a clear and convincing standard of proof. The appellate court held that due process did not require a jury trial, since appellant’s liberty was not at stake. However, the trial court erred in failing to require the government prove its case by clear and convincing evidence, since the importance of the interests affected by the injunction required a higher standard of proof. The court also held that there was no error in the definition of “gang member” for purposes of the injunction, and that the provisions of the injunction were not overly broad.