Briefing the Legal Cases

¶ … hotel sent the security guard on duty to check on Gonzalez in his hotel room. The defendant rebuffed to open the door. The security guard heard the sound of breaking glasses and the high television volume. This prompted the hotel to summon Laredo Police Department to assist in carrying out investigations. The hotel staff did not appeal the police to take Gonzalez into custody. In the other case, Michael Evans arrived at the club with his companions; he unknowingly groped Ms. Niland who later instructed the security officer to arrest him.

Nonetheless, in the second case, Michael Evans had number of associates including, Chad Sorrell, Bernard Lynch, and Dan Lechner. They witnessed the event at the club as opposed to the first case where Gonzalez was alone studying in his hotel room in preparation for the forth-coming Texas Import/Export examination.

In the first case, due to lack of sufficient evidence supporting the instigation allegations leveled against him, Gonzalez is acquitted. In addition, he filed a court action against the hotel for fictitious arrest but did not succeed due to lack of proper reason and evidence. Similarly, in the second case, Michael Evans after voluntarily accepting arrest was freed for the offence.

Bertuca V. Martinez Case

From this case, the defendant was Bertuca Gonzalez while the plaintiff was Hampton Inn in Laredo, Texas.

Gonzalez checked into a room at the Hampton Inn in Laredo, Texas on September 29, 2000. After being unable to reach him, Gonzalez's mother called the front desk, to check on her son's well-being. David Martinez of Hampton Inn went to check on Gonzalez in his room. Upon arrival, he heard a sound of breaking glass from the room. After returning to the front desk, he suspected that Gonzalez was causing damage in the room. In response, the hotel alerted the police who after breaking into Gonzalez room, found disconnected telephone and broken beer bottles on the floor. The action by the police caused an altercation with Gonzalez. After resisting arrest, the police forced arrested and charged him with criminal mischief as well as resisting arrest. Gonzalez was dismissed by the judge and immediately after filed a suit against the hotel.

Michael Evans Caradimitropoulo V. Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa

The second case involved the defendant Michael Evans Caradimitropoulo and the plaintiff Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa. Michael attended a reception at the Tropicana Hotel Convention Center for the Utility Contractors Association as an invited guest on the evening of September 22, 2006. While looking for club MIXX with colleagues, Michael who was walking in a different part of the club was signaled by Ms. Niland, an attendant. Ms. Niland alleges the defendant; Michael approached her and touched her by placing both hands between her stomach and breasts. Niland called security guards come to her assistance, soon after two security guards approach Michael and instructed him to accompany them to another area of the Borgata. While being interviewed, the defendant denied the accusations that he groped Ms. Niland and urged the security guards to review the hotel's video surveillance recording of the area in which he was standing during the encounter with Ms. Niland. The defendant claimed that the security guards insisted on confining him as him together with his companions protested having done nothing wrong.

In this case, the judge concluded that the defendant failed to demonstrate an arrest against his will. The court also found that the security staff had legal justification to detain the defendant for purposes of investigating the incident.

The presiding judge found that the plaintiff, Borgata, under the facts and circumstances of this case, owed no duty of care to the defendant. Moreover, the judge found a preponderance of the evidence clearly indicated that the plaintiff, Shannon Niland was subjected to non-consensual touching, and the defendant himself confirmed that. The judge further rejected the defendant's claim of negligence in failing to make a complete investigation before taking action. In addition, the presiding judge rejected Michael's claims of invasion of privacy by Borgata.

In conclusion, this case presents many factual disputes including the defendant's detention and his alleged touching of Ms. Niland. In essence, the judge's decision was in order .The statements of Ms. Niland to her co-employees were not actionable and hotel and that the security officers acted appropriately in response to Ms. Niland's report.

Defendants Actions

In Gonzalez's case, by having an altercation with the officers, he was handcuffed and arrested for criminal mischief as well as resisting arrest. Prior to this, he had failed to answer his hotel door after the hotel staff heard some commotion, which caused the police to take action. Once the police officers forcefully broke into Gonzalez's room, he became aggressive. Thus, the police officers had probable cause to arrest Gonzalez.

In the second case, regarding the defendants' claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), the judge granted summary judgment partly because none of the plaintiffs had committed any intentional outrageous conduct. The plaintiff, Ms. Niland, was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the defendant's false arrest and false imprisonment claims. The hotel's security staff had legal justification to detain the defendant for purposes of investigating the complaint of the plaintiff, non-consensual touching by the defendant.

Court Ruling

In both cases, no sufficient evidence was presented and this, largely, influenced the judges' decisions. In addition to this, especially in the first case, there was no legal basis for a criminal offence. Gonzalez had done nothing wrong other than resisting arrest, which was as a result of the police breaking into his room. In the second case, Niland seemed to have influenced her colleagues. She had no burden of proof; however, Michael presented a strong case against her.