"This Court finds that the Board acted in bad faith in enacting the ban against Plaintiff, and as such, the conduct of the Board justifies judicial review of that decision"

"As for the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, this Court finds the scales tip in favor of Mr. Janasek."

"The Board’s hands are not tied in addressing conduct at OPA amenities and facilities. The Board still has an avenue of relief in this case even if Mr. Janasek succeeds on the merits. There is a Board Resolution that specifically addresses amenity policies.6 This Board Resolution gives the manager at each facility complete control of all activities under their supervision. Further, as discussed earlier, the Board can direct the general manager to address conduct issues."

"This Court is not swayed by Defendants’ argument 'that the OPA Board was trying to foster a safe, family-friendly environment at its restaurant amenities, not only for OPA members, but also for the general public.' Defendants’ Closing Memorandum, p. 26. The ban enacted by the Board related to only three (3) amenities, the Yacht Club, the Beach Club, and the Clubhouse Bar and Grill. It did not prevent Plaintiff from being around other members of OPA or the general public at the remaining OPA facilities and amenities.  If the Board truly wanted to create a safe environment, it would logically follow that Plaintiff would be banned from all amenities and facilities."

"ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s ordinary use and presence at OPA amenities and facilities (including those identified in the Board’s notice of the ban) shall not constitute and may not be treated by OPA, its Board, its employees, or its law enforcement agency as a trespass or other criminal matter during the pendency of this case."