All You Need to Know About Mike McDevitt and Tessemae
The plaintiff in this case is Tessemae’s that is a Maryland limited liability selling marinades, salad dressings, meal kits and much more. Michael McDevitt Baltimore city county is the defendant and is a non-lawyer owner and CEO of defendants Tandem legal group. Mike McDevitt and Tessemae’s are in a conflicting agreement which the plaintiff seeks compensation in court. In this case McDevitt persuaded Tessemae’s to hire him with the promise of using Tandem legal and business services. This means that McDevitt would serve as the point of contact of all business dealings between Tessemae’s and the Tandem Defendants. There are several allegations Tessemae’s alleges McDevitt and claims to suffer loss and damage as a result and includes the following.
The first one tend to be RICO. Michael McDevitt and Racketeering is a claim being raised in this case by the defendant. There are some requirements in this point such as conduct, of an enterprise, through a pattern and of racketeering activity. As a result of this activity the plaintiff suffered multiple injuries.
Common-law fraud. There is an allegation by the plaintiff that McDevitt is liable for common-law fraud. However the plaintiff need to plead claims of fraud with particularity. Such includes time, place, contents of false representations and much more. In this court there is sufficient proof of this allegation by the side of the plaintiff. There is identification of the person who made the misrepresentations and is Michael McDevitt and Tandem Legal Group.
Next is civil conspiracy. Tessemae’s alleges a count of civil conspiracy against defendants McDevitt. There are some requirements for this allegations to be successful with some of them including unlawful or tortious act. In addition this conspiracy claim cannot stand on its own therefore must be based on some underlying tortious action by the defendants. Defendants in this case argues that Tessemae’s has not pled facts that support its assertions of a civil conspiracy among McDevitt, has not pled any facts supporting existence of a confederation among the defendant and has not alleged the commission of any underlying tortious act. The court therefore rules that the plaintiff has an amended complaint with a naked allegations.
Tortious interference. There are some allegations of tortious interference with business relations against Michael McDevitt and Defendent. This claim is however required under Maryland law to show that the defendant committed intentional and willful acts, calculated to cause damage to the plaintiff in its lawful business, there is actual damage and it was done with the unlawful purpose of causing such damage. Its therefore required that the plaintiff show that the interference as through improper means that the law limits to defamation, intimidation and violence. In addition the plaintiff must allege that the defendant interfered with its existing or anticipated business relationships. However the plaintiff failed in this claim.