If the Attorney General does not seek restitution in his complaint but confines his prayer to an injunction and civil penalties, can the Attorney-Vendees intervene in the action?

If the Attorney General does not seek restitution in the complaint but confines his prayer for relief to an injunction and civil penalties, there is [20 Cal.3d 19] an inevitable potential of the vendees taking advantage of a preliminary or final determination in their favor. For example, in the present case if the People had not sought restitution there would have been no occasion to notify the vendees of the action. Nevertheless, the trial court could have ordered restitution on its own motion at the conclusion of the action on the merits under section 17535. Alternatively, the vendees could have sought to intervene after the preliminary injunction was issued and a preliminary determination on the merits made, and the trial court could have allowed intervention on the theory that "there is risk their contributions to the venture will be used to pay statutory penalties . . . ." (People v. Superior Court (Good) 17 Cal.3d 732, 737, 131 Cal.Rptr. 800, 803, 552 P.2d 760, 763.) ⁹ However, the vendees could merely await the outcome of the People's action and seek restitution in a later suit in which the defendants, if they lost in the first action, might be subject to collateral estoppel while the plaintiff-vendees would not be bound by a determination in defendants' favor in that action.