how do you IRAC this case?

(issue, rule, application, conclusion)

Case 18.2 NIITITN Greenfield v. Mandalay Shores Community Association California Court of Appeal Second Diatrict Ovidio 6.21 CM A 506730 Color 27 2016 Background and Facts Mandalay Shores is a beach Robert and Demetra Greenfield owned a single-family residence at community in California's Oxnard Coastal Zone. Nonresidents have Mandalay Shores that they rented to families for periods of less than vacationed there for decades, renting homes on a short-term basis. thirty days at a time (Continues Continued Mandalay Shores Community Association is a mutual benefit are prohibited. Respondent starts that the STR ban is necessary corporation that was established for the development of the beach community. The association adopted a resolution banning short-term parking, noise, and tranh problem. STAbans, however are a matter to curtail the increasing problem of short-term rentals which cause rentals (STR), claiming that it was necessary to reduce parking, noise, and tranh problems. Homeowners who rented their homes for regulated by private actors where it affects the intensity of no for the City and Coastal Commission to address STR may not be less than 30 consecutive days were subject to fines of up to $5,000 access to single-family residences in a coastal zon. The question of per offense The Greenfields filed a suit in a California state court against than a 31-day rental must be decided by the City and the coastal whether a seven-day house rental is more of a neighborhood problem the association, contending that the STR ban violated the California Commission, not a homeowners association. (Emphasis added Coastal Act. The court denied the plaintiffs request for a preliminary *** Respondents ST ban affects 1,400 housing units and cuts injunction to prohibit the enforcement of the STA resolution. The across a wide swath of beach properties that have historically been Greenfields appealed. used as short-term rentals. A prima facial showing has been made to In the Words of the Court issue a preliminary injunction staying enforcement of the STR ban YEGAN, Acting PJ. (Presiding Judge until trial Decision and Remedy A state intermediate appellate court *** The California Coastal Act is intended to, among other things. reversed the lower courts denial of the Greenfields motion, and it ordered maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public the issuance of a preliminary injurion. Mandalay Shores Community recreational opportunities to the coastal zone consistent with sound Association could not prohibit homeowners in Mandolay Shores from resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected renting their coastal properties to nonresidents. The court noted that right of private property owners. The Coastal Act requires that any the association had "erocted a monetary barrier to the beach and had person who seeks to undertake a "development in the coastal zone "no right to do so to obtain a coastal development permit "Development is broadly defined to include, among other things, any change in the density on Critical Thinking intensity of use of land "** Development" under the Coastal Act is not restricted to activities that physically after the land or water Legal Environment Did the STA ban adopted by the association Emphasis added comport with or contravene its status as a benefit corporation? Discuss What If the facts Were Different? Suppose that instead The STA ban changes the intensity of use and access to of adopting an STR ban on its own the association had petitioned single-family residences in the Oxnard Coastal Zone. STRs were the city and the Coastal Commission to impose one. Would the result common in [Mandalay Shores) before the STR ban, now they have been different? Explain Case 18.2 NIITITN Greenfield v. Mandalay Shores Community Association California Court of Appeal Second Diatrict Ovidio 6.21 CM A 506730 Color 27 2016 Background and Facts Mandalay Shores is a beach Robert and Demetra Greenfield owned a single-family residence at community in California's Oxnard Coastal Zone. Nonresidents have Mandalay Shores that they rented to families for periods of less than vacationed there for decades, renting homes on a short-term basis. thirty days at a time (Continues Continued Mandalay Shores Community Association is a mutual benefit are prohibited. Respondent starts that the STR ban is necessary corporation that was established for the development of the beach community. The association adopted a resolution banning short-term parking, noise, and tranh problem. STAbans, however are a matter to curtail the increasing problem of short-term rentals which cause rentals (STR), claiming that it was necessary to reduce parking, noise, and tranh problems. Homeowners who rented their homes for regulated by private actors where it affects the intensity of no for the City and Coastal Commission to address STR may not be less than 30 consecutive days were subject to fines of up to $5,000 access to single-family residences in a coastal zon. The question of per offense The Greenfields filed a suit in a California state court against than a 31-day rental must be decided by the City and the coastal whether a seven-day house rental is more of a neighborhood problem the association, contending that the STR ban violated the California Commission, not a homeowners association. (Emphasis added Coastal Act. The court denied the plaintiffs request for a preliminary *** Respondents ST ban affects 1,400 housing units and cuts injunction to prohibit the enforcement of the STA resolution. The across a wide swath of beach properties that have historically been Greenfields appealed. used as short-term rentals. A prima facial showing has been made to In the Words of the Court issue a preliminary injunction staying enforcement of the STR ban YEGAN, Acting PJ. (Presiding Judge until trial Decision and Remedy A state intermediate appellate court *** The California Coastal Act is intended to, among other things. reversed the lower courts denial of the Greenfields motion, and it ordered maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public the issuance of a preliminary injurion. Mandalay Shores Community recreational opportunities to the coastal zone consistent with sound Association could not prohibit homeowners in Mandolay Shores from resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected renting their coastal properties to nonresidents. The court noted that right of private property owners. The Coastal Act requires that any the association had "erocted a monetary barrier to the beach and had person who seeks to undertake a "development in the coastal zone "no right to do so to obtain a coastal development permit "Development is broadly defined to include, among other things, any change in the density on Critical Thinking intensity of use of land "** Development" under the Coastal Act is not restricted to activities that physically after the land or water Legal Environment Did the STA ban adopted by the association Emphasis added comport with or contravene its status as a benefit corporation? Discuss What If the facts Were Different? Suppose that instead The STA ban changes the intensity of use and access to of adopting an STR ban on its own the association had petitioned single-family residences in the Oxnard Coastal Zone. STRs were the city and the Coastal Commission to impose one. Would the result common in [Mandalay Shores) before the STR ban, now they have been different? Explain