regarding the procedural history of that appeal, they are outside the record with respect to the merits of this appeal and are therefore stricken. DECISION Because the summons substantially complied with the applicable rules and statutes, and because the district court did not clearly err in determining that Shamrock complied with the rules regarding service of process, the district court did not err in denying appellants’ motion to dismiss. Affirmed; motion granted. 1 . On appeal from an order, the appellate court may review any other orders affecting the order from which the appeal is taken. Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.04. Although the August 30 order is not independently appeal-able, this panel may consider that order. See Rettke v. Rettke, 696 N.W.2d 846, 850 (Minn.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Denison Smith was served personally with
holding that an order denying a motion to vacate a  1782 order and denying a motion to quash the subpoena was immediately appealable holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment holding that order denying motion to vacate restitution order should be reversed where trial judge failed to inform defendant of right to appeal holding an appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration holding that when an appeal is properly taken from an underlying judgment the court of appeals has discretion to review a subsequent order denying a motion to vacate