Essay Instructions: Briefing the case
1. How it’s similar (or different) covering the topic (false arrest) between two cases
2. Brief two cases
- Identify the key facts
- What is the legal issue? (rule of the law, state in the form of question)
- Who are plaintiff and defendant?
- Conclusion (agree or disagree and why?)
- Procedural posture
3. Why the court ruled that way
4. Do it differently (what defendant’s action will bring different result)
5. Why do you think the defendant acted the way it did?
Bertuca v. Martinez
2006 WL 397904 (Tex. 2006)
On September 29, 2000, Gonzalez checked into a room at the Hampton Inn in Laredo, Texas. Because he was in the process of studying for his Texas Import/Export examination, he requested the front desk not to disturb him after 9:00 p.m. That evening, at sometime past 10:00 p.m., Gonzalez's mother, Julie Bertuca, attempted to call Gonzalez in his hotel room. After being unable to contact him, she called the front desk, requesting that somebody check on her son's well-being. The hotel dispatched David Martinez, the security guard on duty, to check on Gonzalez in his room. Martinez knocked on Gonzalez's hotel room door several times. Gonzalez did not open the door or acknowledge Martinez's presence. Martinez did, however, hear the sound of breaking glass coming from inside the room. He could also hear the television set because it had been turned up to a high volume.
When Martinez returned to the front desk, he explained what had happened to the hotel's staff and told them that he suspected Gonzalez was causing damage to the room and that he was concerned for Gonzalez's and the other guests' safety and well-being. In response, the hotel staff called the police. When two police officers responded to the call, Martinez escorted them to the door of Gonzalez's hotel room where they found a disconnected telephone lying on the floor [outside the room] along with one or two broken beer bottles. The officers knocked on the door and announced that they were with the Laredo Police Department and that they wanted to check on Gonzalez's well-being. Gonzalez refused to open the door. After failed attempts to open the door with a key and with the permission of the hotel, the officers broke down the door and entered the room. An altercation then allegedly arose between Gonzalez and the officers. Gonzalez was handcuffed and arrested for criminal mischief and resisting arrest. Criminal charges were brought against Gonzalez. Because restitution was paid to the hotel by Gonzalez, the charges were dismissed. Subsequently Gonzalez brought a civil action against the hotel for false arrest.
There is no evidence of instigation [of the arrest by the hotel]. The hotel personnel never requested or directed the police officers to arrest Gonzalez. After Gonzalez refused to answer his mother's call, she asked hotel staff to check on him. When the hotel security guard knocked on Gonzalez's room, Gonzalez did not answer the door, and the guard heard breaking glass coming from inside the room. Thus, the hotel had ample reason to call for the police to investigate Gonzalez's well-being. Once the police officers forcefully broke into Gonzalez's room, Gonzalez became aggressive. Thus, the police officers had probable cause to arrest Gonzalez. Because there is no evidence of instigation, the trial court did not err in dismissing Gonzalez's claim.
MICHAEL EVANS CARADIMITROPOULO v. BORGATA HOTEL CASINO & SPA
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4205-08T24205-08T2
MICHAEL EVANS CARADIMITROPOULO,
BORGATA HOTEL CASINO & SPA,
Submitted: March 3, 2010 - Decided:
Before Judges Stern and Graves.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Essex County, Docket No. L-488-07.
Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A., attorneys for appellant (Michael F. Lombardi, on the brief).
Camacho Mauro Mulholland, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Eric S. Malinowski, on the brief).
Plaintiff appeals from an order of March 20, 2009 granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint. He alleges he was falsely accused of "groping" a hostess as he endeavored to enter a reception "after-party" held at the Club MIXX at the Borgata Hotel in Atlantic City. He was directed by security officers to an office, asked to show his driver's license, and told no charges were to be filed, but was escorted off the premises and directed never to return to the Borgata under penalty of being arrested for trespassing. The plaintiff's expert, Andrew P. Sutor, opined that defendant "failed to utilize . . . security camera resources prior to detaining and formally ejecting the plaintiff." Sutor, a "Security and Safety Consultant," also opined that defendant "failed to have official law enforcement . . . properly investigate this incident."
The primary questions before us are: (1) was there a dispute as to whether there was any touching of Shannon Niland, a hostess of the Mur.Mur Club, much less an intentional one; (2) whether Ms. Niland or any other employee of the Borgata made a false statement or accusation about same; and (3) did defendant's employees and agents act reasonably. Plaintiff insists there is a factual dispute regarding whether any touching occurred and, if so, whether it was intentional. Plaintiff further insists the judge's decision was premised on the finding of a factually disputed intentional touching that justified defendant's conduct and that, even if there was some unintentional "brushing," defendant's conduct was unreasonable. Further, according to plaintiff, defendant's Crowd Control Specialist Leonard Bennett, who was present at the scene, testified he observed no inappropriate touching but had nevertheless reported and participated in plaintiff's detention based on a groping that never occurred. Plaintiff alleged that defendant's conduct resulted in defamation, intentional infliction of emotional harm, a false arrest, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy and negligence, all resulting in injury to plaintiff, as embodied in counts two through seven. (Count one states "factual allegations").
Defendant asserts the judge could reasonably conclude based on the deposition testimony of Niland, Bennett and plaintiff's companion, Bernard Lynch, that there was a touching and therefore everything else which flowed therefrom constituted reasonable conduct and could not satisfy the elements required for any of the alleged torts.
The facts developed on the motion for summary judgment included the following:
On the evening of September 22, 2006, plaintiff attended a reception at the Tropicana Hotel Convention Center for the Utility Contractors Association as an invited guest. An "after-party" for the event was held at Club MIXX, a nightclub within the Borgata. While looking for Club MIXX with his companions, plaintiff was walking past a different Borgata nightclub, the Mur.Mur, when Niland, a hostess of the Mur.Mur Club, signaled for his attention to determine whether he needed help finding something in the Borgata.
According to Ms. Niland, at that time plaintiff approached her and touched her by "plac[ing] both hands on the top of [her] sides (between [her] stomach and breasts)." Niland reported that the way plaintiff touched her was "forceful and intrusive," and plaintiff said that if she "would join them," he would "come into the club." However, as we understand it, plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not touch Ms. Niland, but his hand "came into contact" with a different hostess when she was "lifting up the entranceway" to Club MIXX, and his "hand hit underneath her breast and went up" when he arrived at that club. Plaintiff asserts that he accidentally touched the second hostess. However, the Borgata and its security personnel did not take any action with respect to plaintiff's touching of the second hostess.
Plaintiff was approached by two security guards who instructed him to accompany them to another area of the Borgata. When he asked for an explanation, one of the employees informed him that Ms. Niland had accused him of groping her while she stood in front of the Mur.Mur Club. Plaintiff denied the allegation and urged the security guards to review the Borgata's video surveillance recording of the area in which he had been standing during the encounter with Ms. Niland. Plaintiff claims that the security guards insisted he come with them to a separate, confined area of the Borgata, while he and his companions protested that he had done nothing wrong.
At his deposition, plaintiff testified
[I]t was made like, you know, I had to stay there. I was under the assumption I had to stay there because of security. . . . I had the feeling that if I tried to break lo[o]se and run they would probably try to tackle me, that's [the] feeling I had, but they didn't say I had to stay.
Plaintiff also acknowledged at the deposition that he "wanted to stay at the Borgata" and told the security guards "no problem, I'll go wherever you want me to go."
According to plaintiff's brief, "after being separated from his companions [he] was escorted by approximately six security officers through the casino in the presence of friends and business acquaintances and brought to the security office." Plaintiff further alleges that one of the security officers informed him that he was being permanently evicted from the Borgata premises, and that if he ever returned he would be criminally charged with trespassing.
In contrast to plaintiff's account of the events in dispute, Ms. Niland stated that her encounter with plaintiff happened in the following manner, according to her "Associate Voluntary Statement":
The group of male guests walked slowly past [Club Mur.Mur] . . . . I asked the group of males if the[y] would be "joining us for the evening." One male in the group approached me, and placed both hands on the top of my sides (between my stomach and breasts). He commented that he would come into the club if I would join them. The way that the customer touched me was forceful and intrusive. I immediately pulled away from the customer, . . . and stated "absolutely NOT," in response to the customer's actions. His friends observed this incident, and pulled him away from the front door. I asked front door security, Leonard Bennett (who had witnessed the event), to call Russ Goss to the front door and to follow the group of males. . . . One male in the group (who had pulled away the male with whom I had the incident) approached me and said that while his friend's behavior was inappropriate, that he had apologized. (The male who had grabbed me appeared intoxicated, when they returned to the door.) I explained to the guest that I wanted security to handle the matter. After security removed the group from the front door of [Mur.Mur], Michael Shultz [the Borgata security director] called me. [After Shultz] explained the process of filing a complaint, I informed Michael Shultz that I did not wish to press charges.
Bennett, the "front door security" employee whom Ms. Niland referred to in her statement, also provided a written statement in which he claimed to have witnessed the encounter between plaintiff and Ms. Niland. He generally corroborated her version of the events:
As I answered questions from another guest in front of Club Mur.Mur I turned to my right to make sure no one was smokin[g] and as I turned I [saw] a gentl[e]man grab Shannon by her upper torso area and [make] a derog[a]tory remark that I could not hear because I had my earpiece in. At that point I detained the gentl[e]man and then called for my supervisor.
Plaintiff's companions, Chad Sorrell, Bernard Lynch, and Dan Lechner each witnessed the interactions between plaintiff and Ms. Niland and provided depositions regarding their observations. Lechner testified that the security staff "wouldn't let [plaintiff] just walk away" and that the guards informed him that he could not "go anywhere" but had "to stick around." Sorrell testified, however, that based on his observations, plaintiff "bumped into" a hostess, but did not know at which club it occurred. He did say the incident occurred while "we went through the ropes," which under plaintiff's version, would be at the Club MIXX.
Lynch, the third individual with the plaintiff, testified that plaintiff's experience at the Borgata has "become an embarrassment for him in business." However, Lynch did acknowledge that "[a]t some point, though, he [plaintiff] did touch her."
Bennett also gave deposition testimony. Bennett corroborated Ms. Niland's claim that plaintiff touched her on the side of her torso while plaintiff stood in front of the entrance to the Mur.Mur Club. He testified that he was about "five, eight feet away" from Ms. Niland when he observed plaintiff touch her in "the mid . . . side area" and "around the chest area." Bennett further testified that he thought the "touching lasted less than five seconds." When plaintiff's friends said "we'll take him," Bennett responded, "No, he has to wait until I call my supervisor."
Russell A. Goss, a senior security employee, testified he did not have a clear memory of his interactions related to plaintiff's incident at the Borgata. However, he confirmed that generally, a patron of the casino who becomes disorderly would be escorted to a "back office." Goss also testified that
[u]sually it's an eviction, that's where we take everybody to process. We'll take photos of the person for our eviction form. Fill out an eviction form itself. Request the customer to sign it stating they understand they are being evicted. Sometimes they refuse, that doesn't change the eviction.
Joseph Vanderslice, the "highest ranking security official" for the Borgata nightclubs, testified that he made the decision to evict plaintiff from the casino. Vanderslice testified that prior to plaintiff's departure from the premises, he presented plaintiff with an eviction form to sign, which plaintiff refused to sign. However, plaintiff was subsequently escorted from the Borgata.
Finally, Ms. Niland testified plaintiff touched her "[c]lose to [her] breasts on [her] side" and claims his hands touched "both sides[,]" but that plaintiff did not actually touch her breasts, but "came very close." Her reactions to the touching were that she became "extremely shaken. . . . had a shortness of breath. . . . was very nervous. . . . [and] really upset." She testified that security staff advised her she could file criminal charges against plaintiff, but she decided not to do so, and continued to work the rest of her shift that night. In the remainder of her deposition testimony she confirmed the facts as she had recorded them in her written statement on the evening of September 22, 2006.
Following his negative experience at the Borgata, plaintiff attended nine psychological counseling sessions with C.L. Buddy Westbrook, a licensed professional counselor. Thereafter, on December 13, 2007, Westbrook prepared a report indicating that he had diagnosed plaintiff with an "[a]djustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood." According to Westbrook's report, plaintiff had experienced "anxiety, anger, and fears, . . . along with ruminating thoughts" and Westbrook was "certain that [plaintiff's] condition . . . was directly related to the incident at the Borgata Casino."
In his oral opinion of March 20, 2009, the motion judge stated that with respect to the defamation claim:
I specifically find that the plaintiff failed to provide . . . any competent evidence or proof that the defendant made a defamatory statement that was, in fact, false. . . . Accordingly, since there was no false statement made by the defendant, . . . there could be no communication of a false statement to a third person.
Regarding plaintiff's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), the judge granted summary judgment partly because neither the Borgata nor Ms. Niland had committed "any intentional outrageous conduct." He also determined plaintiff had "failed to establish a prima facie case with reference to the second requirement [of the IIED cause of action], that is, a showing of severe distress proximately caused by defendant's conduct."
The judge further found defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's false arrest and false imprisonment claims:
The plaintiff, in sum, has failed to demonstrate either an arrest or detention against his will and/or lack of legal authority or justification.
I further find that the security staff, in fact, had legal justification to detain the plaintiff for purposes of investigating the complaint of the defendant, [Ms. Niland], consisting of a non-consensual touching and/or assault . . . .
Again, . . . the plaintiff consented or agreed to the investigation and to the direction or requirements placed upon him by the defendant security staff. . . .
[P]laintiff did not object or contest at any time during the course and/or conduct of the investigation -- or any detention resulting therefrom. . . . he voluntarily accompanied the security officer . . . to the security offices located in the rear of the casino.
The judge similarly rejected plaintiff's cause of action asserting that the Borgata committed an invasion of his privacy, finding "the record is devoid of any proof or of evidence of an intentional intrusion into the solitude, seclusion or private affairs of another." Finally, after analyzing the elements of a negligence cause of action in cases involving premises liability, the court dismissed plaintiff's negligence claim as well. The motion judge concluded that "the defendant, Borgata, under the facts and circumstances of this case[,] owed no duty of care to the plaintiff." Accordingly, the trial court ruled "the defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law" and granted its motion.
At oral argument on the motion, the judge fully understood that "[p]laintiff seems to indicate 'there were two separate instances of contact with two separate and different hostesses.'" Unfortunately, much of the judge's opinion is premised on the finding that "there clearly was a non-consensual touching of the defendant, [Shannon Niland], by plaintiff." The judge found a "preponderance of the evidence provided clearly indicates that the defendant, [Shannon Niland] was, in fact, subjected to . . . non-consensual touching," and that was confirmed by the depositions including the "plaintiff himself." We cannot agree there was no factual dispute as to a non-consensual touching of Ms. Niland, as opposed to plaintiff's statement there was a non-consensual touching of the second hostess. However, we agree that the remainder of the judge's reasons, as supplemented herein, warrants affirmance of the judgment.
As to the defamation claim, there is no proof that Borgata or any of its employees published a written or oral statement to a non-witness to the event other than internally to co-workers for legitimate business purposes. In fact, the defamation count asserts only that "[d]efendant Jane Doe #1, did make a false and defamatory claim to Borgata security that plaintiff groped her, which he did not do" and that the false claim "communicated to Borgata security injured the plaintiff's reputation and caused plaintiff to experience emotional upset and anguish" (emphasis added). Thus, as a matter of law, the allegations did not justify a claim of defamation. Feggans v. Billington, 291 N.J. Super. 382, 391-94, 399-400 (App. Div. 1996). Moreover, defendant's conduct was not shown to be either outrageous or intended to produce emotional distress so as to permit recovery for emotional distress damages. See Buckley v. Trenton Savings Fund Soc'y, 111 N.J. 355, 366 (1988).
By plaintiff's own admissions, the remaining counts were properly dismissed. Plaintiff admitted he told defendant's security officers "I'll go wherever you want me to go." He went with the officers voluntarily because he maintained he did nothing wrong and in an effort to resolve the manner amicably and remain in the hotel-casino with his companions. But even if he felt restrained, there was justification or probable cause to hold him pending an investigation of Ms. Niland's allegations. Thus, the false arrest and false imprisonment claims were properly dismissed. Mesgleski v. Oraboni, 330 N.J. Super. 10, 24-25 (App. Div. 2000); Barletta v. Golden Nugget Hotel Casino, 580 F. Supp. 614, 617-18 (D.N.J. 1984).
We also reject plaintiff's claim of negligence in failing to make a complete investigation before taking action. It is the endeavor to make the investigation which plaintiff contests in the other claims. In fact, plaintiff would have been restrained longer, while videotapes were reviewed and outside law enforcement offices responded to investigate, under the approach plaintiff now proposes. In any event, the circumstances do not reflect a breach of any duty owed to plaintiff.
We acknowledge that this case presents many factual disputes including whether Ms. Niland was touched, where plaintiff was detained, and if plaintiff had any confrontation in front of the Club MIXX. However, the existence of a factual dispute does not require a trial if there are no material disputes of fact. In essence, we agree with the motion judge's decision that the statements of Ms. Niland to her co-employees were not actionable and defendant and its security officers acted appropriately in response to Ms. Niland's report.
Finally, we need not examine if N.J.S.A. 5:12-71.1 trumps the claims plaintiff advances by authorizing the conduct undertaken here.
The spelling of Ms. Niland's name is not consistent in the record and briefs. We use the spelling on the cover of her deposition. "Mur.Mur" is also spelled differently throughout the record, and we use the spelling Niland and Bennett used in their employee reports.
Defendant's position on this appeal is not helped by its "counterstatement of material facts" which cites only to the motion judge's opinion, as opposed to any of the depositions, interrogatories, or expert reports before the trial judge.
In his response to defendant's "statement of uncontested material facts," plaintiff countered:
Plaintiff, Michael Evans Caradimitropoulo, denies touching Shannon Niland. She invited plaintiff to approach her by waving to him; he approached her and she, in a bizarre fashion, recoiled from him as he asked her where the entrance to a different night club was. Plaintiff thereafter walked away toward the entrance to a different night club, Club MIXX, where the second interaction occurred. The Court is requested to view the interaction between plaintiff and Ms. Niland depicted on the videotape, Exhibit A. Plaintiff denies emphatically that he touched Shannon Niland . . . .
Subsequent to the interaction between plaintiff and Shannon Niland plaintiff accidentally made physical contact with a different hostess at Club MIXX. . . . In the second incident plaintiff accidentally bumped into a different hostess. . . . The hostess involved in the second incident confirmed with security that the bump was accidental and not intentional . . . .
It is not clear what this answer actually relates to, as it follows a question about whether anyone at the Borgata told him he could not leave and his partial answer that he "was under the assumption [he] had to stay there because of security." He added that he "wanted to stay at the Borgata."
There are no record citations given for this proposition or for the claim he was escorted to a taxi and "forced to leave the casino grounds in a taxi." The plaintiff's deposition does reflect he was told he could not return to the Borgata, but plaintiff does not explain what appear to be inconsistencies in his deposition.
On several occasions part of a question to Bennett asked if he perceived the touching to be "inappropriate." It appears that he says he did not.
As requested in plaintiff's brief, we have viewed the videotape presented. As we understand the briefs and arguments, the relevant part concerning the incident occurred outside the Mur.Mur Club. Suffice it to say, we completely agree with the judge that "[t]he surveillance tape of the incident is . . . inconclusive and offers no support for either party's position." The tape must relate to the underlying incident because the video also shows that the person we presume to be plaintiff walked away and could well have reached Club MIXX before the security guards assembled, and also shows plaintiff walking to the security office. He was accompanied by one officer walking at his side and others following at a distance. There was nothing which, in our view, showed to an objective observer that he was detained or restrained unless that was already known.
At oral argument on the motion, plaintiff's counsel stated that Bennett told Bernard Lynch that plaintiff groped Niland when explaining the detention.
To the extent Barletta denied summary judgment on the facts, we note that dispute was between two patrons and the security officer was called in when Bartch insisted that action be taken, and Barletta be arrested. Id. at 616-17. Here, we again emphasize that part of plaintiff's deposition stated he voluntarily went with the security officers and that he did touch a hostess.
August 20, 2010
Excerpt From Essay:
Essay Instructions: The paper should include information on the guard service industry. For example, companies provide security guards, under contract, to government agencies, public schools, businesses, etc. I am interested in the composition of the market, how business is generally obtained, any regulation in the industry, top companies in the industry and their current status, and an outlook for the industry in the future. If specific information is found relative to the Baltimore-Washington area, please include such data.
Excerpt From Essay:
Essay Instructions: 2. BUG, Inc. Paper
BUG, Inc., a pany based in Any State, U.S.A., designs, manufactures, and sells electronic recording devices. These devices are used by law enforcement agencies (police, FBI, etc.) to intercept and record sounds and voices. The equipment taps into telephone wires, cell phone transmissions, and picks up sounds and voices through the walls of a house or in open-air locations through the use of a remote microphone. Part of the equipment is driven by software written by BUG employees. BUG has exclusive contracts with most state and federal law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. BUG is thinking about expanding its sales to international markets. Currently, half of its manufacturing plants are in foreign countries and half are in the U.S. The pany?s logo is a ladybug wearing a set of headphones.
Write a 700-1,400-word paper answering the following questions:
a. Define the different type(s) of legal protections BUG should have for its intellectual property. Explain why these protections are necessary.
b. Earlier this year, WIRETAP, Inc., a relatively new pany trying to pete with BUG, sent one of its employees, Steve, to BUG to get a job. BUG, not realizing Steve was an employee of WIRETAP, hired him to work in its research and development department located in Any State, U.S.A. While working at BUG, Steve forwarded any BUG e-mail he received to WIRETAP. This included e-mail between BUG officers (both domestic and abroad) that Steve intercepted using his hacking ability. At the end of each week, Steve met with his boss at WIRETAP and gave him all the information he obtained about the BUG product lines. Discuss in detail what type(s), if any, of civil liability Steve and/or WIRETAP may face if caught.
c. [See situation b. for background information.] Walter, a security guard for BUG, learns that Steve really works for WIRETAP. Walter takes Steve to a small soundproof room where he keeps him for six hours. During this time, Walter continues to ask Steve what he is doing at BUG and what information he has given to WIRETAP. Walter tells Steve that he will hurt him if he does not tell him everything. Steve finally tells Walter what he wants to know. Walter then lets Steve go home. Has Walter mitted any torts? If so, explain. Discuss any liability BUG may have for Walter?s actions.
d. BUG has e to you for advice regarding interstate and international e-merce. BUG wants to sell its products via the Inter. BUG is concerned about privacy, security, infringement issues, and email contract validity. BUG is also concerned because a pany that buys famous and/or pany name domain names seems to own the rights to the domain name BUG.. The pany is willing to sell the domain name for a high price. Advise BUG on all e-merce issues that could possibly affect the pany. Be detailed in your response.
e. Shady Town, U.S.A. has been plagued with a recent crime wave. The BUG plant in Shady Town has experienced vandalized vehicles in its parking lot and some second shift employees have been robbed as they walked to their cars at night. BUG receives shipments of parts and other items from vendors at its receiving/shipping dock located at the rear of each plant. The parking lot and dock areas are well lit; however, some lights are now out. While waiting for the dock manager to return from lunch, a vendor was attacked and robbed of his wallet and the electronic chips he was delivering. Discuss what, if any, tort liability BUG may have to the vendor and to the BUG employees that were attacked. What defenses may be available to BUG? Explain your answers.
f. [See situations b. and c. for background information.] The attorneys for BUG have pleted their investigation of WIRETAP and its employee, Steve. If they want to bring a successful action against WIRETAP for civil RICO, what do they need to prove? What type(s) of damages could BUG receive?
g. Sally DoGood, a police officer in Shady Town, was sitting in a police van monitoring wiretaps placed in the Crime Boss hideout. The equipment she was using, which was an older model purchased from BUG, short-circuited and injured Sally. An insulator that could have prevented the possibility of shorts was not included in the original design because of its effect on production costs. The newer models, not yet purchased by the Shady Town Police, have the insulator installed. What tort(s) may Sally have for a successful case against BUG? Explain your answer(s).
The assignment above should plete each of the questions and cite business law resources. If you have any questions I can be reached at or . My e-mails are and michael.
Excerpt From Essay:
Essay Instructions: Write 500 words for the following issues Day Care centers/schools face; (You can expand on the topics)
1. lack of Funding
• unequal funds distributed to different school districts
• Not having recreational activities
• No Art classes
2. Over whelmed administration
• Principles to busy dealing with issues such as Parents and students and not enough time on instruction and visiting classes.
3. Lack of security in schools
• Security guards not doing their jobs, falling asleep on the job
• Strangers walking in and out of the school building
• Children not attending school everyday
5. Students on different educational level’s
• Children who enter schools without any prior education tend to be behind of children who attended early childhood centers such as Head Starts and Universal Pre-K
6. Lack of parental Involvement
• Parents don’t have time to get involved
• Parents don’t know how to get involved
• Don’t have classroom management skills
• Preoccupied teachers
8. Lack of resources
• Not having adequate resources such as curriculum books, classroom supplies
9. Unmotivated teachers
10. none uniformed classes
• Teachers not following standards
• Classrooms not following the same curriculum and timeline
Excerpt From Essay:
I really do appreciate HelpMyEssay.com. I'm not a good writer and the service really gets me going in the right direction. The staff gets back to me quickly with any concerns that I might have and they are always on time.
I have had all positive experiences with HelpMyEssay.com. I will recommend your service to everyone I know. Thank you!
I am finished with school thanks to HelpMyEssay.com. They really did help me graduate college..